Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 11:34 UTC
Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.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 7E9011A012A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 UFpDsn0K7jWA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D86B1A010B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1397648069; x=1429184069; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lTvNRpq2xBaT0FXRDg5c8r6Wj3Z64Xy0r3e4rUwLwRY=; b=u3S04RKnWXzeItUXfJMFbCKQWE4Qrr5YjCU7MppqM5kuxrAVgZXPbjVs Pc1EBUN0HQ3EHTbLHKmgOCwT6P+WyUQGUvvLNCwxhlZTiIpUYf/up4pbm 6pkoxM8XPDov4WM0W3fnw109kJ+n4fhuMlUztsU0PhMUrLeaB3azicGwL 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7409"; a="29137261"
Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2014 04:34:29 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,871,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="29453084"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 16 Apr 2014 04:34:28 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:34 -0700
Message-ID: <534E6AC1.7030709@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 06:34:25 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
References: <534B524F.4050206@dcrocker.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132327560.26258@joyce.lan> <E0B7196CB2603B80BBEC21AF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132346420.26386@joyce.lan> <1EBDF5239EEE5202D3837D25@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534B9760.90301@dougbarton.us> <6C80882F19CCEDFE15E987CA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534BEF75.5060804@bbiw.net> <534DB093.5020507@qti.qualcomm.com> <534DBA0F.2050507@gmail.com> <20140415231720.GQ4456@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140415231720.GQ4456@thunk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/T823fjs5PWq2BjvOZ-FzZ5YMjSA
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:34:34 -0000
On 4/15/14 6:14 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >> There should be a mechanism for an author to send a message to a mailing list, granting the mailing list permission to redistribute that message, and have that permission conveyed to the mailing list recipient such that when the mailing list recipient receives the message, they can assure themselves that the originating domain is OK with that redistribution. Sounds like some protocol which could be written. >> > That suffers the same problems as X-O-A-R: you have to know when to trust the intermediate. In the absence of that knowledge, any message transformation is invisible to the recipient, and potentially malicious. You would have to invent a scheme for identifying transformations, so users could verify them against the original sender's signature. > Not necessarily. If the originator of the message sends to a mailing list, the originator's site should trust the mailing list to redistribute the message and make any transformations. (If you can't trust your users to make a decision on which lists to send to, that's a different thing.) If the originator's site is going to allow that, you could create a mechanism where the originator's site gets some sort of cryptographic data from the mailing list site and include that in its signed message, such that when the eventual recipient gets the message, it can verify that it came from a mailing list site that the originator explicitly sent the mail to. That doesn't require the originator's or the recipient's site to independently trust the mailing list. (It would, of course, be perfectly OK for the recipient's site to check that it's getting the list mail from an authorized site; that's separate from of the above.) And again, this is only if the originator indicates that it *wants* to allow its users to have their mail redistributed. The site is well within rights to indicate that it doesn't want that to happen, and a friendly mailing list would bounce the mail in that case. On 4/15/14 6:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:00:31AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> (If the originating domain is expressly *not* OK with the >>> redistribution, the mailing list should bounce the message back to the >>> author saying as much.) >>> >> Isn't that exactly what p=reject implies? If so, the logical behaviour >> for all list software would be to check the DMARC record for the >> originating domain of each message, and bounce it if p=reject. >> Yep. > The question is which is more or less unfriendly? > > 1) Forbidding yahoo.com users from participating on mailing lists > > 2) Rewriting the from field of yahoo.com users. > More or less friendly to whom? If yahoo.com says that it doesn't want mail from its users sent via other servers, it might be unfriendly to its users to bounce the mail, but it's pretty darn friendly to yahoo.com. (Imagine the question: "So, you say you don't want things with your users' addresses sent from my server. Are you OK with me rewriting your users' addresses with '.invalid' on the end and then sending them?") And it's much friendlier to eventual recipients of this mail to bounce it (forcing the originator to send from a different address) than to get a piece of mail that will cause them to get a bounce if they reply to it without noticing that there's a ".invalid" at the end. The problem is that the current protocol is not rich enough to express everyone's intentions. Yahoo conceivably might want to say, "It's OK to receive mail from a yahoo.com user from a site that is redistributing a piece of mail that a yahoo.com user explicitly sent to it." But there's no way to say that in the protocol now. Given that, yahoo.com has made the current choice to say, "Reject all yahoo.com mail that comes from a site other than yahoo.com". That's a choice yahoo.com is free to make. A friendly mailing list is well within spec to honor that request by not redistributing the mail. > I could easily see the mailing list software making this be > configurable, so it's up to each mailing list admin. :-) > I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large ope… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alex Ojeda
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… l.wood
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a listad… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John Levine
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Douglas Otis
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a lista… S Moonesamy
- (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of special John R Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R. Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… S Moonesamy
- Re: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… tytso
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Mark Andrews
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- [off-off-track] Re: (DMARC) We've been here befor… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Alessandro Vesely