Re: Do we actually want to do anything about DMARC?

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 15 August 2016 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D742912D0F9 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSmh6ymtcqyz for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448B112D0BD for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h186so19759222pfg.3 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wae5aF7ffeFNHpb3Nys2ckOR0uGWyYpubiE42GwpslY=; b=gf7/FbptIOut1jQhwR150BIhbuf5PI9GuH7F+B/5zoSotzTgpMZQINAB3clKKoLJqN OAEGNZusa0ENbeZI6WXG0LhSpxlZNYK58nctBZi3szJqWnqenCJz64GVeESVc6tdTDVe jCs2tsk8folLW4zrF4QYuVTcD9H4EA/91H1H0/DJYjc6Sx+0Ruv/vZgzY/RNaILkjXOB UPcVy+UuJ2VRLd+NEfRTolB1yzc5bWzwVB2B5zHJb0i5cfSYm9Anu8ivGeEyRz2hyjHn fg8emRZTGM4MzxPZWZkpVMlY6zykGEJhxstsZd6ZTTcx9qjE4GRYh0x/oZ1WNC/krr8e spZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wae5aF7ffeFNHpb3Nys2ckOR0uGWyYpubiE42GwpslY=; b=SbelbLI0M3BqPwlOCeZNAj65I2e4aOwZ+vEk3VyQZaLqKi0NmpDMqCKN0BnovbOsab W8dbRizoUGYuTQLCveJQgtTZaHpn4EfPacNUZ5j/VOCmAcJDsRPx1m3Zf1kZUN5Qs4HR areAINICEHdvEzKLpy5wlcZfnGmmTWwoW0/i7Hntdvtgq6DEstPBHzDLqvu5usrPze7s 5dSLSQ9InDHudj7DEf8IAxStZZ8vF2UKuVbJHkUzCc5NmN/mknfCPzW24j1wQxO5i6T7 qgF35+ejZEdH+tMAfNtk+Xnh57YQJ1xoy58zqpCZvLzoU7KMyiXeHShaAMZI+sItmOzu Wjog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutW9QMzK/ldFW4krLVsmERPaXz4M5JinHS2W5mMNwOQ0h8ALCN6uV4om17wpol0oA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b86mr4932788pfk.129.1471292564651; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7d53:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7d53:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id b90sm33441910pfc.29.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Do we actually want to do anything about DMARC?
To: Alessandro Vesely <>,
References: <20160815012208.8845.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:22:42 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 15 Aug 2016 20:22:47 -0000

On 15/08/2016 21:31, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Mon 15/Aug/2016 03:22:08 +0200 John Levine wrote:
>> My form is, but if wildcard MX records
>> are scary, it could be  Having done
>> this before, I know it's not terribly hard, and I'd be happy to help
>> make it work.
> would involve even
> less work and worries.  IMHO, it is not so much its forcing recipients
> to refurbish their wit in order to discern phishes, as its rendering the
> From: field meaningless, which troubles this workaround's viability.

Since the IETF already has a global white list of approved posters that
is already used by mailman, it shouldn' be hard to use the same white list
to admit traffic to the remailer and reject bogons.