IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 CDE5312D18D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 12:20:47 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=P4/8JcMb; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=gxI/d6+c
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 gfyZrtmowIQt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9168D12D0A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 May 2016 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4375 invoked from network); 22 May 2016 19:20:43 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1116.5742068b.k1605; bh=e0C5K0sjqAgrEvX/fFAwR6R8ahdmPWTucj6BoZszTME=; b=P4/8JcMbdXJfCmq2m2nTJZgBFdUYQgojbE3rPKk292y6uND93ab6oGoPD6sQmTvdQ6ZrIA+u+RyaOl7QC2vMY0j98aEkLy5xavsFkFbgnh+031P+bjBsW9tl4jre5IX5XtjrxdDLKEXNU9oNyFbdERvPEO2Cq3QblNi9nhM+kY0WzWtyrRGKAE8g31TG5YsvWehnmUmHkQwo3lZLTKSTFNcc+sI075RwXLCAQo5mVbC02oVJs5F1zm3XgJtJjBs2
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1116.5742068b.k1605; bh=e0C5K0sjqAgrEvX/fFAwR6R8ahdmPWTucj6BoZszTME=; b=gxI/d6+c/bXA0bmsWtoHPrhX5KkRpv0Wsm4uqMkfzZ2+0Gr0bRV/Xnh4POLWH09KngTfwEuiMcoRbNCI6P/WGSzAGInbuSF+0J51XPiLzH2eBybTGg67bn72kiuS32X4LWoahKI/Y5sbjV4TYGHdt17BjeTez/ZOQd9P0WPC5UfhPQPbi65aQ8vgTtfvg3V679zYVb5DVOh6Am6WlflIi0hUTqVXsYWobRJXzVXsmzLuSXaFonQ0mbZzwQuuCvmZ
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 22 May 2016 19:20:43 -0000
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:20:43 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1605221519550.39116@ary.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <015501d1b45b$a7979d90$f6c6d8b0$@huitema.net>
References: <3211644D-09A8-4969-B830-A62F9EBC593B@fastmail.fm> <20160522142013.48173.qmail@ary.lan> <015501d1b45b$a7979d90$f6c6d8b0$@huitema.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HIvMX6tYCCZoD3PppwCswOc9qO8>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:20:48 -0000

> Let me give a "half full" view of this "half empty" glass. This experiment shows that not all UA to the right thing, but some actually do. If the "forwarded" scenario becomes important, user pressure and competition will drive more UA to improve their handling -- or more customers to switch to systems that handle such messages correctly. So there is some hope.

Since we already have ARC in the works to let lists keep working the way 
they always have, changes to MUAs purely to work around DMARC problems 
seem unlikely to me.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email