Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Miles Fidelman
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> Is it perhaps also incumbent on the folks promulgating DMARC (and its
> predecessors, and its sure-to-be successors) to work cooperatively with
> mailing list developers, rather than taking the position "nope, we break
> mailing lists, not our problem?"
>
>
The DMARC proponents did engage mailman.   Version 2.1.16 includes support
for a setting that makes the operation of the list DMARC-friendly, though
likely in a way some people will find unpalatable.  Either way, it was not
done entirely in a vacuum.


> I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that what we need to be looking at is
> defining an SMTP extension that addresses BOTH sets of concerns - and doing
> so in a cooperative manner that engages not just the community behind DKIM
> and DMARC, but also the developers and operators of mailman, sympa,
> majordomo, listserv - and ideally the sendmail, postfix, exim, qmail
> community.
>
> Dare I suggest that this calls for an IETF working group?
>
>
I mentioned in another thread that the DMARC people did come to the IETF to
ask for a working group to complete development of the work on the
standards track.  This request was denied on the grounds that DMARC was
essentially already done, and thus the IETF had nothing engineering-wise to
contribute.  There were also too few people that were not already DMARC
proponents that would commit to working on it.

(And as I said on that other thread, I'm happy to stand corrected if I've
mischaracterized any of that.)

-MSK