IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: yet more DMARC stuff, was Re: Mailing list membership.

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 13 March 2017 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 EC9021294A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 Gqr3sJi_PwzC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF8412945E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2DINb2u017023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:23:37 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1489429417; bh=0AOFbJOlubmS8nlQua9OnS9jcP6dR4YsAHjow+Umxd0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mY2QTaoMtbu6X4V+ej9btTNyIApp3QtjLohd81ReGBBBtboOLW7A+1q3vRhSbQNwb 84SkOsWAkTwc82e8dhabd79O4NGWUG0kEVvtMIvuhmGy2Dj6ddR7kigj0CNLCneyfK 4YGHOUSLfqy8GUgAsKY8Ny473y09UIVZVZcR14Qc=
Subject: Re: yet more DMARC stuff, was Re: Mailing list membership.
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20170301210033.1672.qmail@ary.lan> <C758AD84-F7DB-4520-A497-66CFBA8A48B1@tzi.org> <5e382acb-077c-87f3-7355-aa3bf913e78c@dcrocker.net> <EEAA5E62-DD3A-4D62-8E78-204C24859A73@tzi.org> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703131838100.54839@ary.local>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <ef9d9186-bfa2-2fd7-cb7f-0894f1620eaa@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:21:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703131838100.54839@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GACU73goECejVXIv7I8AUmtU8f0>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 13 Mar 2017 18:21:44 -0000

On 3/13/2017 10:43 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> You can complain about how stupid they are or you can upgrade your mail
> system to use authentication methods that have been IETF standards for a
> decade and get your mail delivered.  Your choice.


On the other hand, perhaps the IETF would consider formulating a 
suggestion to those who are embracing this policy change that they 
document it properly and publish it openly.

I suspect most/all of the adopters participate in M3AAWG and that a 
draft BCP effort from M3AAWG, submitted to the IETF either for BCP 
status or Independent Stream Informations, would be constructive.

So one might even consider having the IETF ask this to be communicated 
through the IETF/M3AAWG liaison(s)...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email