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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 2EBD31A03BA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 B6tb0LJE5saQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C041A03BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F7AD0453D; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1398390630; bh=EZgoSC1OCJCezUf6VNUN63bCdHw+Yop3VX0KfBnwNAk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=3DeZAw0BuGcG5w2FbAtgJ9Tx8a1ZlI5Y7PDboviAHl4t5+OCoMnA0Vh+Ipv5NZdj5 nYcWaVeLmx9y+XUXg2NFX0/G3TQtkVxx4GHdqv4MZW4ViLsxUMEuQmlBWTeJ6txLmz S5CmFyiqPWYqsdY7x78VdVHPcaVLYrx2bErU754A=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (63-253-113-202.ip.mcleodusa.net [63.253.113.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2521D04328; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:50:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1880086.yRGn2NtzXo@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.0-24-generic; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <57E35BDB-30DF-4829-A6CE-F1132E0C2EFC@gmail.com>
References: <20140425002622.E6DFA1ACE0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <7859156.ek3Qf5sxiO@scott-latitude-e6320> <57E35BDB-30DF-4829-A6CE-F1132E0C2EFC@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/V6H9SDamoGLqTyJ6W-LiqOzJimI
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:50:43 -0000

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 18:41:12 Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication
> >> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a
> >> telecommunications
> >> provider by some _outside_ third party.  So in the US a p=reject DMARC
> >> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation.
> > 
> > No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense.  The 1st Amendment to
> > the constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private
> > action. See http://xkcd.com/1357/ .
> 
> Dear Scott,
> 
> Strongly disagree.  The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by
> not declaring ISPs common carriers.  People's ability to meet and freely
> associate is now being steadily eroded by policies hostile to decades of
> neighborhood and small communities' normal meeting practices. This has
> nothing to do with someone being abusive and shunned.  This is about ISPs
> taking greater control over content carried on the Internet.  The usurping
> of control over Internet use is very likely to put democracy in greater
> peril as content control is taken over by an oligarchy.

I didn't say it was a good idea.  I said it wasn't unconstitutional.  No all 
constitutional ideas are good ones.  It's a case of law, not fundamental 
rights.

Scott K