RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, was perspectives

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 9BAD61A0473 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.343
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 8Vj5EZgFg8Mf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E8B1A0259 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 96004 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2014 01:59:54 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=17702.534c929a.k1404; bh=r79xaPiwERF8C0XIqxzYmRPi1vULpctjRJ4A091bpIA=; b=CQJ0WqLKZXEr7MKerVAGq4A2b672K8nf+ik6eYaW/ztf//rgUyx9gR/4iWdp3XWDjP89BNu1vyU87d5hSzy0J2lVv9m87TilTUlz34JVmfHfiO2AObN1eiXhcibHD12Exp5uAlb9QWSPnW7ArG//3b8XsKNFzusmgSNaZbWH67f0Qmdn9za9RA+17WSxP8/OmIDIwHAgG7dGMl8eer9Ohxmv6cZyberGx+OD92uVDueQszXNjAygJGwwuDwO/F7t
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=17702.534c929a.k1404; bh=r79xaPiwERF8C0XIqxzYmRPi1vULpctjRJ4A091bpIA=; b=31d8u7q+QXOkcDli7L7T7UJNfy5sV2k7FWuKliBZLxVwxsUxQ/x0uYJbJ+KKj96m3g+pAsxIAF+PhLPsrEp1d2tj08evS73MHYPqG9kzaqfznNVDPyA5z41Z/5FCinLas6S2asYGugf8RASLOSX0xeLGKRYkoIq5GUID6JKPXPFum/FW/0bPPGKE7WSc09EwhBMIEENxWGXETzJMRU5Ddz2hL3VDGfCQk5tFLtpf2oEaopHgFqbSsDjr9aRBiCSF
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 15 Apr 2014 01:59:54 -0000
Date: 14 Apr 2014 21:59:53 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404142150430.32657@joyce.lan>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
Subject: RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, was perspectives
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D460CB@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D45766@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <20140414214949.32126.qmail@joyce.lan> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D460CB@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/R87r_Ysx6trrR81kd9iRUsoVmOE
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 15 Apr 2014 02:00:01 -0000

> You are absolutely correct in stating that DMARC doesn't address mailing 
> lists - because you have staked out a position that mailing lists should 
> not have to change in any way shape or form to deal with any 
> authentication model. That is extremely constraining out of the gate and 
> pretty much ends any meaningful discussion at that point. "How about if 
> we... NO!"

The sentence always ends "... spend our own time and money to break or 
remove features our users expect and like to solve your problems", so of 
course the answer is no.

I've never said that lists won't change, I've said that we're not going to 
screw them up to work around your FUSSP.

If you ever made a reasonable offer, I would be happy to talk about it.
But you haven't.

If the DMARC gorillas hired someone (Returnpath? Spamhaus?) to build a 
mailing list whitelist, the goodwill would be enormous and the cost, 
spread among the DMARC group, would be nominal.  But spending your own 
money to solve your own propblems somehow isn't on the table.  We're 
supposed to spend ours, instead.  Are you really surprised this is not 
making you any friends?

R's,
John