Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Tue, 15 April 2014 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 00B031A0307 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 BemPD7BlC7bj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [IPv6:2607:f2f8:ab14::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A821A0301 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.23] (unknown [99.17.31.1]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 284E122B1A; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:04:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dougbarton.us; t=1397531056; bh=0c0p4GvePxaVCSXZrvfIQAkWvDsvHbzTTCVBH08LKD4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=IMi9Y8HELmRhXeQHhZpEbxdkm1TQAv+B+fjazaO9Fyh7kfP2j1Y7916WT6r9FvhfD 8fyi0GSfXBJ9+WlB1E0EI3qdEhXM7KQC1yajmm+At0fe5nEx9sm8Ov9XsSIju3qpl7 oJl51Jq5VPqExLVeIiZYhWVAd7E0ZVErZepV3e74=
Message-ID: <534CA1AF.2040603@dougbarton.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:04:15 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com> <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J2Ry-4CuTqJ7SA4K10-QGPDfYms
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, 15 Apr 2014 03:04:20 -0000

On 04/14/2014 06:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
> was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
> some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
>
> Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?

Simple ... from Yahoo!'s perspective the breakage is negligible, not 
serious. Traditional e-mail traffic to and from traditional e-mail lists 
(like this one) is simply not large enough to lose sleep over. Keep in 
mind, Yahoo! knew what breakage was going to occur before they threw the 
switch, and they threw the switch anyway.

Again, I realize that it's hard for most IETF'ers to conceive of, but in 
this matter we are the ultimate anachronists.

Doug