Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 29 April 2014 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 D7CA11A08E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.873
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 6SSD49lCYjS1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A578F1A08D5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1398779536; bh=K7dVNAG4TKtTWMGbFOZ9lax1mWlRHjbZWXqSUIYHmeM=; l=1008; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=VtvHhY7ogE0RwiygJt2UAnHJvgTmYPmSgQLrDSXPQ8kUSf3OvzZgQyvQKQNzBpJ/z JvTIAsPJUZwBPb98TZXzlFUerYv+1poX2OxjsOqV7zUViq/Fl5ZCBkO5clJ1eHvlWg eVWeGjDZD1H5kXtyKawDSDiP87616W44VVSmOW7I=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:52:16 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.00000000535FAE90.000036CF
Message-ID: <535FAE90.90209@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:52:16 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?
References: <20140429124528.GA1324@mx1.yitter.info> <6778109B-953A-45F4-92C9-1543E80A7F9C@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <6778109B-953A-45F4-92C9-1543E80A7F9C@frobbit.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MzsY32TkerR7wxWZMzkf7g5g1uQ
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 13:52:21 -0000

On Tue 29/Apr/2014 14:55:52 +0200 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).

There is also a p=quarantine policy.  Yahoo! and AOL, as well as
PayPal, LinkedIn, Facebook, etcetera use p=reject, though.

> That said, the result of the above is that B is unsubscribed from
> the mailing list due to large number of bounces, but that is
> because B is recognizing the policy A is publishing.

B's domain need to do so in order to reject scams claiming to be
from banks or social networks.

> Do I get this right?

More or less.  Many people set up forwarding to an address at a
domain different from theirs, typically large providers, so there
are multiple places where the bounce may occur.

Ale