Re: DMARC and ietf.org

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 15 August 2016 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D50112D110 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=opendkim.org header.b=2vCxTZat; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.com header.b=l4YKNhuB
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 lp32L3e2s53P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:48:13 -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 4124512D66B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.82.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7FGliiV011195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1471279675; x=1471366075; bh=VD5OEZNiJNnu2JqXZShjZd0kyP0YsIFCl0ep6DXaHe4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=2vCxTZatOnwD2LyBk2AExdEqB5hH/OaPlo2TYPJViCoj6ML2kB/7mDowcmju+iFDa 95RERxc1lOlO/YEsFkDg063MYZ7i3kzZlHiTxGRTYwJY38s40pKeTO1zFHIqXsQAbu sxOjdKevPQyiI6JBJaENQN30UpQajukf37h9W4Fg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1471279675; x=1471366075; i=@elandsys.com; bh=VD5OEZNiJNnu2JqXZShjZd0kyP0YsIFCl0ep6DXaHe4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=l4YKNhuB0QvpNn48ePfzJqFxDGLQ57TF+ipMeDuB3kHj4vW5MWXJXOcIz1SYDrydi IZ0ulyN4YtnJ0pKBsJXHUxr94SN5pVh0bGoJUmbG2Dbj8kKBiftNU7k58i0YywKlvQ vTvu6uNLbQC1ZchtvbySAPv4Dh2ena/l/jNKSJS8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160815082006.0d62bfb8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:41:00 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20160815114408.GA28486@gsp.org>
References: <c87f5578-be42-5a4e-d979-f4166e2f2ef2@gmail.com> <20160813023957.5679.qmail@ary.lan> <CAPt1N1mO0xxfc3SghV1pcNUjOz9yKk-g=bgU+dWrgy2LWcwhBg@mail.gmail.com> <20160813150004.GM10626@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608131101040.12562@ary.local> <20160815114408.GA28486@gsp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L2A_Zo2Sp3JdxNhEHnUnILJPgSQ>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:48:15 -0000

Hi Alexey,

The thread about "DMARC and ietf.org" goes back to July 2014.  I took 
a quick look at the draft about Interoperability Issues Between DMARC 
and Indirect Email Flows.  It is odd that the non-IETF RFC is an 
Informational reference.  Anyway, that's not a matter I am interested in.

The issue with the "DMARC and ietf.org" discussion is that nobody is 
doing anything about messages from senders with DMARC policies which 
might be encounter delivery failures when the messages are sent to 
ietf.org mailing lists.  Some of the possible changes to address the 
issue can have an impact on a more than a decade-old IETF practice.

Could you please look into this matter?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy