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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 8DCD81A01FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, 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 iWdkj7dq-Y3H for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A516C1A049D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so8634614wgh.24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xX/JT7eWfxZwSdpmOPRS7959x/yIQ7NdJAP6T7nv7e4=; b=HjL6HAjY+q67ikHa7PpI1rZOkgAsqojsV2Dx8qnLsA07OI6X2kURlvxYoj7ZEvn0gw rGTrW8572PBS1a4VfHuUOEcLZCs85LugHZE07QrLhitt9DEvYJ45QOyotBNw4FJfHxA4 Yd/u+mbJqk572F7/3nLARTeRM+R3+LBsJREINUeEm/hJ78fXdIzB5SWQxEbx8BAptn1g 4OBoE5/gxA4AomTf+Qw/mDp6V2CDrLQ7SjAn+E3Mz+Exq3CeKIma5G7pVxTxol4+dasj X9/CFmeFPnqK98NBobsTodMoFu6NnPGu/lnuYEFOw3EHyxtA+TziYUmtFqQjvcdrA0wC v+YA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.116 with SMTP id nb20mr10610350wic.5.1397498604666; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.140 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:03:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c26ab4e7c50d04f7047f2d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U6AP9tHxzHPhLuWf9Zcl-DniJbQ
Cc: IETF Discussion <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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:03:29 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
> wrote:

>
>
>> A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible expression of IETF
>> displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from IETF
>> document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the
>> unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
>>
>> To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot;
>> not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.
>>
>>  The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of
> DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
>

What real-world effect is this supposed to have, apart from setting a very
dangerous precedent?

-MSK