Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:11, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Theodore Ts'o <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> IBM deciding to invest a billion dollars in Linux).  If you wanted to
>> interact with the rest of the Linux Community, you weren't going to be
>> using Lotus Notes.  And guess what; an alternative was provided.  It
>> had nothing to do with Linux being a cult.  It had to do with a very
>> simple business decision.
> 
>> I really do believe the IETF is underestimating how much power it has;
>> even if it can't move the big consumer mail providers, developers who
>> want to interact with the IETF will find a way.... and if not, maybe
>> the IETF doesn't have the power to be an effective standards
>> organization any more.  (Which certainly seems to be true in the
>> e-mail space, anyway....)
> 
> +10.  We are very important, far more important than we often realize.

We have power - power over our participants. Not power over any of the major players or even our participants’ employers.

> This is why I have pushed over and over again for us to do something sane.
> (If that means you can't participate in NOMCOM if your company can't get
> email to work, then that's okay with me.  We also insist they their network
> byte order correct.)
> 
> If I can't hear from companies with a p=reject policy via ietf.org lists,
> then I simply don't care.

We don’t hear from companies; we hear from individuals. I care about input from people from Microsoft and Google. I know some working groups where they make up most of the editors. Yes, we can tell them to go get some gmail.com <http://gmail.com/> or live.com <http://live.com/> accounts. That’s adding yet another layer of inconvenience.

>  I have work to do.  I already delete emails from
> people who can't quote sanely.

So Outlook users are out as well?

>  If it's a mess on my screen, it's probably a
> mess in their head too.   Their opinions just aren't taken into account by me.
> Sorry: "You must be this tall to ride this ride"
> 
> 
> BUT, if their email bouncing kicks me off the list, then I will be very
> grumpy.  My spam filtering provider provides me controls to ignore p=reject
> when arriving from certain origins, but this doesn't scale well.  I'd rather
> the IETF implemented DMARC properly and rejected the email from arriving at
> the list.  Or the IETF can repudiate DMARC completely.  To me, it's the
> IESG's choice, but this sitting on the fence for four years pissed me off.

Or we could provide a very basic MTA under ietf.org <http://ietf.org/>. Word on the street is that it’s simple enough that even a politician can handle it.

Yoav