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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 14 April 2014 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B2C1A06AF for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AiNtw0Ohhyqk for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B461B1A06A9 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r20so4417064wiv.9 for <>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UNFpe+IL6XUm9flau9+6jh4wLOdUPyicNUI7yOR8mr0=; b=f4cqFq86GwJeSDgsNo8nNFUWVU1hF97JaudNUiAByMBy1WdDAagdtDhe6ykqeFl21+ 7QwQ2c06gGvTUSg5S1A1/MFQNjms2mliz6Krlu1z3Bq2SMX3vYBucFnhtKVr5IDEYiqB RY9q5h36FI+Vhbp5VJ+EmwHsC5j2KHV+gAE5ypO4gab1q/yAXHJhJ/UBQyxyIWUwW7/M 4huANHUdH0bvTW2zAFUDHTje0DHSS/kKIlOs8CQ0Pyoy2Yry+d9DmL6ujz8bpp9FjkOm 8stw5UwbMGXM1MVN+jlah+WwemaRFFSffWn0/9l8qcRFiOTeJKfZB9IaiOV2+EY4queq Y8Rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id k18mr1405760wiw.5.1397496404799; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20140414024956.26078.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132327560.26258@joyce.lan> <> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132346420.26386@joyce.lan> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:26:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Miles Fidelman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374995c8761b04f703fcbd
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:26:53 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Miles Fidelman

> 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.)