Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 19 December 2016 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073CD129463 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Bgwyic76Qz7U for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7AC9128AB0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE7F200A3; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41D263768; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:28:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions
In-Reply-To: <20161218022903.8800.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20161218022903.8800.qmail@ary.lan>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:28:50 -0500
Message-ID: <17974.1482114530@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EmmRbYuoVvRQfyLaovZzhj1zZNA>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Dec 2016 02:28:53 -0000

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    >> I really think that this is the right answer for our community.
    >> The DMARC policy is not to forward, and we should respect it.

    > How many IETF participants are we willing to lose over this
    > principled position?

Define "participants".
I believe that all IESG, IAB, secretariat and WG chairs will grumpily change
mail providers (or stop using their work email) if they have to.  Many have
already had to stop using work email addresses because of other stupidity
they can't control, and we already know that "gmail.com" does not suffer from
this direct problem (at present).

There are probably a few document authors that we might lose.
But, I've lost about five document authors while ROLL WG chair simply due to
attrition (they fell off the planet:  even phoning them did not help), so
I'll bet most WG will not notice, it will be in the noise of other reasons.

So we are down to people reading the list.  Most WGs that make progress have
5, sometimes 10 if they are lucky, actually active people who read, write and
review documents.  If their contribution has been valuable, and they fall off
the list, and the WG chair notices, I'm sure something will happen.

meanwhile, btw, we are having problems actually scheduling enough WG
sessions, so maybe we can affort to "lose" a few.  Maybe, we'll gain a bunch
more who can now actually reliably stay on the list.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-