Re: DMARC and ietf.org

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

There is no "pretending" here. We actually IMPLEMENTED and DEPLOYED 
the consensus built MAILING LIST recommendations and it works.

So I disagree 100% with the erroneous suggestion there has been "no 
consensus at all."  To suggest there is no guidelines whatsoever has 
been the real disservice being promoted.  Its not true.

It doesn't matter if its DMARC or ADSP. It the same design guidelines 
and if you actually implemented it as list developer, you might see 
that its really that simple.

The old argument that List developers are too old to change doesn't wash
anymore and in reality, once you roll up your sleeves and implement 
the consensus built suggestions, you will see it really has nothing to 
do with list services. It has to do with the VERIFIER.

So in short, I take slight offense to your suggestion that I have no 
understanding of the total issues involved as a product developer, its 
product offerings and also addressing the support needs of its 
customers which represents a wide horizontal spectrum of applied list 
needs.  There are solutions and I speak as a developer of a commercial 
integrated mail list server product line:

     http://www.santronics.com/products/winserver/ListServe.php

Note. This has nothing to do we have a "big data" problem (how to 
scale signer authorization).  Its a serious problem. But the consensus 
built guidelines provided are solid and necessary for any solution 
development.  You still need to honor the policies at the mail entry 
level.

-- 
HLS

On 7/21/2014 3:18 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> John is correct. There is no consensus on how mailing lists should deal with DMARC problems, notwithstanding what rfc6377 says about DKIM. ADSP never gained enough real world implementation for there to be a meaningful consensus. One need only look at the discussion threads on the IETF (and other) list(s) following the publication of DMARC p=reject by several large mailbox providers to see the diverse range of views.
>
> While I disagree with John on some things, in this case he is 100% dead on. To pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to the mailing list community and the mail community at large.
>
> Mike
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
>> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:10 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/2014 10:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>> I thought the preferred solution was to rewrite the From for those
>>>>> users only.
>>>>
>>>> I think that remains controversial. ...
>>>
>>> There is no consensus at all on how mailing lists should deal with
>>> DMARC problems.
>>
>> Not quite John.
>>
>> The specific DMARC protocol aside, with any author domain policies in
>> general, whether it was SSP, ADSP or any DKIM author domain signing
>> authorization protocol (DSAP),  there was a consensus RFC built document
>> that provided the basic guideline for mailing list operations in dealing with
>> restrictive DKIM signing policies. It used ADSP as the "DSAP" of the day. But
>> replace ADSP with DMARC and the design recommendations apply:
>>
>>      RFC6377  DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists
>>      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377
>>
>> And overall, the basic guideline was to support the framework, not ignore it
>> as it never existed and instead pushed for breaking the security protocol.
>>
>> As a LIST developer and implementor of the "DSAP" protocol, it was simple:
>>
>>    1) Deny Restrictive Domains from Subscribing
>>    2) Deny Restrictive Domains from List Submission
>>    3) Pottery Principle "You break it, you own it" - Resign mail
>>
>> That is all at the top level that needed to be done and all the above really has
>> nothing to do with a mailing list but the mail receiver verifier and the
>> outbound mail server.
>>
>> This is about not wanting to do a basic author domain signature authorization
>> lookup for any kind of mail service.
>>
>> --
>> HLS
>>
>