Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 29 April 2014 17:49 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 660621A0947 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 4G6MggpQ6hVy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:49:48 -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 0AFE81A0948 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.143.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3THnLml022427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1398793776; bh=CHwyLcZJiprl5OKhQ+kgJJOuoNK5wlDDVNwhDRTAH/0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=zWw0lcaXdYOIY/4Ys2kEipLq0Y+xKlSk5WKDFjsEx9J6KC0YG9Of2+0tH+Nt96cnc dgpd5seQ+f3CHi+8biQ96ra8eEO1+hY2MYlkaPOmGwJVt/6PGvUbQ46qlr6pDm/+gn dbw6mrWKFBwYsJtr9KR+tQtUZvzoSMPWWaKd7FKc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1398793776; i=@elandsys.com; bh=CHwyLcZJiprl5OKhQ+kgJJOuoNK5wlDDVNwhDRTAH/0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=gNZe2toBINQzAF+drENeli/6osb431BS9r/p9F77Kyy+nvxMam+F0X9bRDmqCRXN4 GI8KTzfnbMmZgacjlURMAe/GUiMJ1SVnWpxPoPX1vzS8SpaccVkGHejZ7FBYRAuDUj 6b7kgQhUFopQrNN8I5G+bYL5QTmQlG38c813atQI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140429085037.0bbf48a8@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:25:16 -0700
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf@ietf.org, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KL2hR9D2gLR3EMjmqCpFxtLg1QE
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, 29 Apr 2014 17:49:49 -0000

Hi Alessandro, Mikael, Patrik, John,
At 04:10 29-04-2014, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>There has been some discussion on what should the IETF do about the
>collateral damage experienced by several mailing lists when major
>mailbox providers switch their DMARC policies to p=reject.

[snip]

>The DMARC draft is currently in "AD Followup" state.  A review was
>posted here last week, a process which doesn't seem to affect
>deployment much.

My review was sent to the ISE.  It was copied to 
the ietf@ietf.org mailing list for informational 
purposes.  I did not expect the review to affect deployment.

>How is the IETF going to proceed on this issue?

The above question could be ignored as it is 
addressed to everybody and nobody on this mailing list. :-)

At 04:22 29-04-2014, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>I would really like to see the standards process 
>for this mechanism be stopped until the mailing 
>list problem has been sorted out. I don't really 
>understand how it got that far with this problem unsolved.

It is likely because only a few persons tried to 
do something when it was possible to do so.  A 
significant number of possible (IETF) issues go 
unnoticed as it is not always clear whether they will cause problems.

At 05:55 29-04-2014, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>The problem exists if A is publishing such a 
>policy, B is acknowledging the policy, B is 
>generating a bounce, and the bounce is hitting the mailing list provider.
>
>I do not understand why a bounce should be 
>generated (and not the incoming mail to B would 
>be tagged as spam and/or null-routed).

I posted a simplified example of the problem at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87286.html 
Silently dropping messages (null-routed) creates mail blackholes.

At 07:39 29-04-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>So, as a purely hypothetical set of questions (I am not
>recommending anything), I wonder what would happen if some of
>the people who have been claiming they or the general public are
>harmed by this would, instead of asking what the IETF can do
>about something that is not an IETF Standard, went to their
>local "competitiveness" or "antitrust" authorities, explained
>the situation and started complaining?   I also wonder whether

The regulator might start an investigation.  The 
(lack of) results can be used as input for governance issues.

There is someone from the European Union reading 
this mailing list.  The person might be able to comment to help Alessandro.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy