Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 19 December 2016 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1ED71294BE for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMXPzDiu_eMF for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA401293F2 for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549DD200A3; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:29:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EB063768; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:11:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Theodore Ts'o <>, IETF general list <>
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:11:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 02:21:08 -0000

Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:
    > IBM deciding to invest a billion dollars in Linux).  If you wanted to
    > interact with the rest of the Linux Community, you weren't going to be
    > using Lotus Notes.  And guess what; an alternative was provided.  It
    > had nothing to do with Linux being a cult.  It had to do with a very
    > simple business decision.

    > I really do believe the IETF is underestimating how much power it has;
    > even if it can't move the big consumer mail providers, developers who
    > want to interact with the IETF will find a way.... and if not, maybe
    > the IETF doesn't have the power to be an effective standards
    > organization any more.  (Which certainly seems to be true in the
    > e-mail space, anyway....)

+10.  We are very important, far more important than we often realize.
This is why I have pushed over and over again for us to do something sane.
(If that means you can't participate in NOMCOM if your company can't get
email to work, then that's okay with me.  We also insist they their network
byte order correct.)

If I can't hear from companies with a p=reject policy via lists,
then I simply don't care.  I have work to do.  I already delete emails from
people who can't quote sanely.  If it's a mess on my screen, it's probably a
mess in their head too.   Their opinions just aren't taken into account by me.
Sorry: "You must be this tall to ride this ride"

BUT, if their email bouncing kicks me off the list, then I will be very
grumpy.  My spam filtering provider provides me controls to ignore p=reject
when arriving from certain origins, but this doesn't scale well.  I'd rather
the IETF implemented DMARC properly and rejected the email from arriving at
the list.  Or the IETF can repudiate DMARC completely.  To me, it's the
IESG's choice, but this sitting on the fence for four years pissed me off.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-