Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

Yoav Nir <> Mon, 19 December 2016 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F9D129A93 for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 iM7G7_g9xtWI for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47859129B07 for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id xy5so151581918wjc.0 for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=k3Gw5Xz/LyhThzefHO2Rvq1VG8Ki0WZdHHaddnLolrM=; b=ZgPqmsDeLPazB/r+smQt3ZQWDJv705v42EakvT19sndUfHhM2mMXbjMkOWlIXgRiP4 PD1R4JyJvyqxvBqRhu9BVJNze2kyIs/b4Wrr671fXL3lSNnYE7qV282TEmb8jmdN9mWT pUHFzb/l18aBVQ3TaVdhSgZRfAoJg3GFbkzejOc9sRLEaL3b9dvC5af8V4k9mDIfLcXS CoESGMAOIB6hI/pDXZsCZzXONwz8yvkXThnfgAwHOBOz3D4qEvf0lBhAvKlq/btXBq7b 1WjuPRb/YQngiH73ijpTqhHArtqLYWFXZiYzW8TGl7QgOIT0qALNpZvnxJSCItUkIeZT 7QKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=k3Gw5Xz/LyhThzefHO2Rvq1VG8Ki0WZdHHaddnLolrM=; b=ABmyY//5SVFfBjtQYSXBzjcOtlmS6OUUvkuClryz6kch2Ogm3iBc/Hk+kZ4PBSTWBG 7BEyw6Oxo8PNYbMFv2KwHgDlnVx9Ai+U0sgo6RyGF7NsvL2AMUEnnM3cTz3cTaB/rCjK zxndvwp5FOV8L2OpK+LPeCZg/4bjpMDJbmzfklKjXuOxHTAAwWOUUkAqUsR0jApvNPss jicT64gV06FewoOiaVSuZiNLqqU4orufa7JdGmMZpsBNAaFqglkX474nnU/fA/rbiuS3 /LfKAxVaP++SWsbFx8t+T4TyxsNCiC+lIN3E5RQtOLnGJNuXrLWfDkSisb4NKn38YDq/ qgFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00fKqsGqZSWj+ezVzXNJNRGbpWihlVgFfMggFeqIahG9bBds1QuNUyOPpLItKPfsg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d3mr13992742wjx.96.1482160598737; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id e6sm21041398wjw.33.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:16:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Yoav Nir <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4E844789-23B3-4A67-9007-3CDE6B842E72"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:16:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <>, IETF general list <>
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, 19 Dec 2016 15:16:42 -0000

> On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:11, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o <> 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 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 <> or <> 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 <>. Word on the street is that it’s simple enough that even a politician can handle it.