Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists Sat, 19 April 2014 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734E01A0549 for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYfP7QU4V2EE for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA0C1A0217 for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> (original mail from for; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:35:09 -0700" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Doug Barton <>
Cc: Ned Freed <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 00:56:08 -0000

> On 04/18/2014 07:47 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>  >> I said:
> >> Rather than throwing up our
> >> hands and telling the DMARC folks that we refuse to work with them
> >> unless their solution solves the problem of our anachronistic use case
> >> that that constitutes only a tiny percentage of their overall traffic;
> >
> > Again with the traffic size as justification for poor behavior. Not all
> > messages are created equal, and some functions have utility entirely
> > disproportionate to the amount of bandwidth they use.

> Right, so the input here from the operators is, "Mailing list traffic is
> not important enough to us to prevent us from deploying an anti-spam
> solution that solves the vast majority of our problems with little cost
> or difficulty. The MLM software authors will have to deal with this
> problem on their end." And your response is to stamp your feet and
> shout, "But my mailing list traffic IS important! It is, IT IS!!!!!"

I really have to wonder where you got enough straw to build a strawman of this
size. If you actually, you know, read what I've been saying, it has been that
this was handled extremely poorly by the IETF. Just not in the way you happen
to believe.

Your view of what happened, who the operators actually are and what their
positions are, and what the likely consequences are going to be are somewhere
between a gross oversimplifications and looney tunes. But I must say they are

> I'm glad that you feel that way, we should all have things that we're
> proud of after all. But in terms of actually listening to and acting on
> the input we've received from the operator community about this topic,
> the IETF has failed.

Wrong again. The evidence shows clearly that the IETF did listen, to this group
at least. Where the IETF failed was in not looking at the big picture and
likely consequences, which I'm afraid is not laid out along the axis of "big
operators all supporting DMARC" versus "tiny insignificant list maintainer

Oh, and not that it matters, but I personally have only been tangentially
involved in most of this. This is because a lot of it happened when I wasn't
unable to participate. Kidney transplants and heavy standards involvement don't
mix very well.

> The fact that people like you don't recognize this
> as a failure is a clear sign that our slippery slope into irrlevance is
> well greased.

I've been saying from the start that this was a failure on the IETF's part.

It's just not the kind of failure you think it was.