Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <seth.p.johnson@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 D5F721A07D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:47:03 -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 97jC9_toyDl3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608301A079F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jx11so9582454veb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Fd+Iuz9sv/iKosFCwfjX0SLQ77mV/S6ewrJhRyJBulw=; b=C8QLv6YetACAYE74tTl67aPxTSvYWgYmBL9JLFetQBSW33N2DHKMWUsxIx1q1OW8Gr gqt8a9QS8Nf1bfQ4p8mivOry7RbK0WWbFT78ub3tjWy5OmIOyh2TSPnFq8ZnNiKtGa9x 4uUYJH2QF4E+K0LFmvLAIJDoMh8rb6IhShCdYZ6Rc8PSYJxKovHVdZhuYcs9WpM48mX8 dvwHWjmD0voUvelGEgrkecMG23kCWe94NdeSLi8ONN/S0quXJLO1QIF70egD+Npickk6 tNXE9SaMfQTTQ263C75T03A4wp6JURr7bK86VpmmzQtKI0O6PHoJ5ztIvG1GfZPBH+Bb pwQA==
X-Received: by 10.58.23.6 with SMTP id i6mr2094449vef.12.1397580415300; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.66.6 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534D5FD6.506@meetinghouse.net>
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> <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com> <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com> <534D5516.7060902@dcrocker.net> <534D5FD6.506@meetinghouse.net>
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:46:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzw4uKOvOdZKiymW6PX+iQ9CYQuMENOopx-32nEA7TGyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339db132fb8504f7178cdc
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F72pfYZCCSalKjegN2Px7GkJji0
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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:47:04 -0000

They're forcing adoption -- while folks have not been addressing this piece
of the inter-governmental frame.  :-)


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
> wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2014 6:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
>>> was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
>>> some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> As the most-recent public statement from Yahoo, this might have some
>> tidbits in it that are relevant to your question:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/82426971544/an-update-on-our-
>> dmarc-policy-to-protect-our-users
>>
>>  You mean the part where they say:
> "We know there are about 30,000 affected email sending services, but we
> also know that the change needed to support our new DMARC policy is
> important and not terribly  difficult to implement. We have detailed the
> changes we are requiring here <http://yahoomail.tumblr.com/
> post/82426900353/yahoo-dmarc-policy-change-what-should-senders-do>."
>
> I.e., 'not our problem'
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>