Re: DMARC methods in mailman

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 21 December 2016 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132B1129552 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=EmjvXuEp; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=TiRILAFx
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hcua-kyuF9J for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B370E12949D for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBLFMK1u029231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:22:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1482333746; x=1482420146; bh=U0pP5gIFj9M8V9kEpikLLOVyPWFLXSk2vY0rFBF7hwQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=EmjvXuEpd06RMdqSbjWfRO3LvGllmW3oiI0flxaDiiX08P1FGmdg0fLn9BgheQkY7 FpNikMGTpUcjWZst9n7XYTlhBEXP9fEAk44sfLfevT6I3yVlk57API/FKZGNlSBsDo IgKKr+L7S3uwucdLwlAtyXQJ/5nM4C2hBY3FDQvQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1482333746; x=1482420146;; bh=U0pP5gIFj9M8V9kEpikLLOVyPWFLXSk2vY0rFBF7hwQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TiRILAFxPxPqgilKVko8mk41GQDyQf5mjLTfq44M3JYRX/LQIp45558MfVPSCZP74 MCV9EGtmx+7C0fjq1rquYKqkLmzqF6EUmEFHK08ycH0sj00phBmNCxAOUnw++Ae1RE ghF2hBhfY67JPKd8C9jL62M40TBSJPmhiIA7lpDg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:22:13 -0800
To: Philip Homburg <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:22:28 -0000

Hi Philip,
At 04:10 21-12-2016, Philip Homburg wrote:
>Just to be clear, is this an option that individual subscribers of the mailing
>list can set?

No.  You can view the options available to individual subscribers at

>For me, the current IETF lists work fine. My MTA completely ignores DMARC,
>so it would be nice not to be subjected to mangled From headers.

I have not encountered any issue.  I would have opened a ticket if 
there was an issue.

>Are you talking about senders or recipients? The reason yahoo stands out is
>because yahoo seems to be one of the few providers that rejects or bounces
>mail that fails DMARC checks.

I was talking about recipients.

>Or are you saying that at the moment 40% of the subscribers of IETF 
>lists reject
>or otherwise not receive mail from DMARC protected senders?

The 40% was statistics about one IETF mailing list only.  Messages 
from the mailing list to those (40%) subscribers would not be 
rejected as some of the mail providers are not advertising a 
"p=reject".  A number of the mail providers in that 40% will not 
deliver messages from the mailing list to the subscribers as they are 
advertising a "p=quarantine".

S. Moonesamy