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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Tue, 15 April 2014 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 21C661A01BE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 kFKY1aqwzN0I for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7601D1A0639 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC476CC093 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:35:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pVaRFmQRsmbl for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62382CC08F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <534D5FD6.506@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:35:34 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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> <534D5516.7060902@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <534D5516.7060902@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JC7afpq0pXRtheQuHevNC9L_prE
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 16:35:47 -0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/14/2014 6:45 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?
>
>
> As the most-recent public statement from Yahoo, this might have some 
> tidbits in it that are relevant to your question:
>
>
>
> http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/82426971544/an-update-on-our-dmarc-policy-to-protect-our-users 
>
>
You mean the part where they say:
"We know there are about 30,000 affected email sending services, but we 
also know that the change needed to support our new DMARC policy is 
important and not terribly  difficult to implement. We have detailed the 
changes we are requiring here 
<http://yahoomail.tumblr.com/post/82426900353/yahoo-dmarc-policy-change-what-should-senders-do>."

I.e., 'not our problem'

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra