Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903381A06ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBGQMymayT3l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CBD1A06E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id cc10so4725465wib.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qK4RMtIVqsnZA7xOeoK8mDFAeNW+kiQa3cL0C5dxg0I=; b=si75dHFoW7sXqVKzwTDJe0cTiVI6h+cALlSNn37tBqveGGORQ4kiqPJjZlybIy8+b1 O/6VnkXEMtm6k/NvOqvoy/G0VNJicWW7qKHCpr+ITNeqGMqUgrUs9rgD0hA/VgLPfnPT bw/eZsVFAn+/KjmUxDs99g4MtasAZpMueuf0I7BV2lEMqQY6KuM5x6rXYtQiAT3uRIPU ijV1DSE+9yVhQsk3atEr6x+fIq2iN5Q1dlhgMiUWYqsGvtRlgox/j5Z7Y73Tv9dKha4w L7o1SCX4TuiYrKD6ImdqfA+kQKK4cqMPKKvhH9lDpDeFI9RkaP6gAJtDpJ+ocC3yJwjG 4qkg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.116 with SMTP id nb20mr11194144wic.5.1397510246682; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.140 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:17:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c26ab4d2da3804f707356b
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ETvs3wJbVegIoUDzS_pT6gY24Tg
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:17:34 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> wrote:

>
> 1)  Invalidates the inappropriate document citations on DMARC site.
>

I think you give them more weight than is justified.


>
> 2)  Publicly refutes any claim that this is an IETF standardisation effort.
>

Any such claim is merely outdated and needs correction.  DMARC did seek
standardization, but it was effectively denied.


>
> Robust action in defence of IETF reputation is possibly a precedent worth
> setting.
>

I suggest the price of going about it the way you described will do far
more harm than good, for reasons Brian has already cited.

-MSK