Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 08 April 2014 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 A375D1A0473 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 rs9V24qqpj5y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427441A045E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s38HLaWb011516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396977709; bh=fZtlQMUPOeIUryiXhNTC5k3E19VHfktnnCRz0rKuYV0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=mUccinNxrNS/OeRKbCo5/+YhFxmehuTxcdtc29WvRwPyoNOtbFf5jMvWXEUgSkuoq qqSzd2U9o/9TBuPQv+wfC43ymcn/9km2x3+QFoafW1F1mL2X+EzWZvNej9l2we4+j0 6OO5oeNnVr0+y27BSPJosYBJCzYpH58n2sgOITTE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396977709; i=@elandsys.com; bh=fZtlQMUPOeIUryiXhNTC5k3E19VHfktnnCRz0rKuYV0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=qDIeGYwdnOTurWrirsnWazPbigh+Y4+d7QWlthUQFlgVjzWsRcTDixrsJT2W4gZ2O vBrT7N3V1PBIMK8FKAG1pJJX4hs3Vg5RuKnpePcpqG0Xylc9e1nTFZpynZzo2saSPO /w+mlme2yLsQFqBf26BF6FI7aUJPxSwhrMfMLP1k=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140408101346.0ccb5e88@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:19:57 -0700
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
In-Reply-To: <01P6EEIPML6600004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <robbat2-20140408T031810-279861577Z@orbis-terrarum.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404072357400.73388@joyce.lan> <01P6EEIPML6600004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Hbhw1njQELcxPSz8-o2fmFC6mbg
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>, zwicky@yahoo-inc.com
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, 08 Apr 2014 17:22:32 -0000

Hi Ned,
At 09:52 08-04-2014, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>Actually, mailing lists *can* implement DMARC, just not that way: Do a DMARC
>check on all incoming messages, and if the domain policy is one that is
>incompatible with the list's own policies - whatever they are - either change
>the list's policies to conform to that message or reject it outright,
>preferably with a nasty "find another a better mail provider" sort of message.

There is some Mailman code which does the above.

>If the IETF wants to take a leadership position in regards to this issue,
>perhaps someone could set this up.

I did a search before asking this question; I did not find any 
answer.  Does anyone know whether the IETF adheres to BCP 167?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy