IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Tue, 29 April 2014 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 9452C1A0933 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 wI4dfSBO1pUE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4C41A0939 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.22] (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9F79232E1; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_37BAFE7E-ED40-45C0-9462-62498968CED8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Will mailing lists survive DMARC?
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140429085037.0bbf48a8@elandsys.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:05:07 +0200
Message-Id: <216E796D-AF3A-4278-AE1E-918F364ABDA9@frobbit.se>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140429085037.0bbf48a8@elandsys.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VPGXy4lbSSoXGJxgBC3IjgVpKF0
Cc: John Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
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: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:05:11 -0000

On 29 apr 2014, at 18:25, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> At 05:55 29-04-2014, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> The problem exists if A is publishing such a policy, B is acknowledging the policy, B is generating a bounce, and the bounce is hitting the mailing list provider.
>> 
>> I do not understand why a bounce should be generated (and not the incoming mail to B would be tagged as spam and/or null-routed).
> 
> I posted a simplified example of the problem at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87286.html Silently dropping messages (null-routed) creates mail blackholes.

Yes, correct, but I already see lots of this.

I.e. just like any >N points in spamassassin.

Anyway, I do now understand the issue and thank everyone that onlist and offlist have explained the issue to me.

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email