Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sat, 12 April 2014 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 EBD871A023E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 JrFQ6CwDjcRz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B22B1A023D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B852383D9; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:48:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1EB160066; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A691160052; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C0A13A7AA6; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:48:34 +1000 (EST)
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <20140412230200.GA14599@thunk.org> <5349C7C9.6030908@meetinghouse.net>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 12 Apr 2014 19:10:01 -0400." <5349C7C9.6030908@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:48:34 +1000
Message-Id: <20140412234834.86C0A13A7AA6@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SFxzZ7m6OJfmyr9kM1TtmEYyyJc
Cc: 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: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:48:56 -0000

In message <5349C7C9.6030908@meetinghouse.net>et>, Miles Fidelman writes:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 03:56:14PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> We (really I) support perhaps 2 dozen small email lists, for a bunch of
> >> community groups (PTOs, churches, neighborhood groups) - mostly the legacy
> >> of previously running a small hosting firm, and still having the machines
> >> sitting in a data center.  The kinds of groups with lots of non-technical
> >> users who have email accounts on Yahoo, hotmail, AOL, Comcast, and such.
> >> The lists range in size from tiny (5 person boards of directors) to maybe
> >> 1000 (high school parents).
> > Why don't you just respond by sending an e-mail to each of the
> > affected users, telling them that they will unfortunately no longer be
> > able to participate in the mailing list due to the choices of their
> > mail provider, and that if they want to continue to receiving e-mail,
> > to consider setting up new e-mail account with some other provider
> > such as gmail -- and then cc postmaster@yahoo.com on the message.
> >
> > That's how I plan to deal with things....
> >
> > 					- Ted
> 
> Well, it's certainly attractive, if time consuming.  2000 or so people, 
> or 24 or so list messages, plus dealing with all the folks who ask me to 
> personally unsubscribe one address, and add their new one.  Probably 
> less painful to patch the list manager to re-write the From address of 
> incoming mail (which is what seems to be where a lot of people are going).
> 
> As to them impact on Yahoo - I expect they'd ignore it.  On the other 
> hand, I'm starting to wonder about suing them for damages and creating a 
> public nuisance. :-)  [yes, I'm feeling a little vindictive right now.]

Just reject any email with a DMARC "p=reject" qualifier destined
to a email list at the SMTP level that doesn't include you as a
valid sender.

5.x.x DMARC p=reject not compatible with email sent to a mailing list

What Yahoo is doing is anti-social.  It is forcing people who don't
want to be involved in DMARC to particate to some level as they are
getting all the bounces from Yahoo's idiocy.

Alterntively reject all @yahoo.com email until the DMARC record is
changed.  If Yahoo want to apply presure to people to support DMARC
by changing their software, email list operators can apply presure
back when they deliberately do something stupid like this.

Mark

> Sigh...
> 
> Miles
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org