Re: DMARC methods in mailman

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 22 December 2016 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4749F129422 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:26:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=cXKjsikl; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=cX0Ic2cM
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvb8iozNsyfy for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E569126BF6 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBM0Qb5V008992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:26:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1482366406; x=1482452806; bh=QZqUyzCnG7/Sw1ClbVBP3bHd/M9SFlq3cs17j7E2U7w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=cXKjsiklLmKTxea/SPfbtiIkIMHXfgzKddRzhR4mc5MAjuXrfQrzGwk+SRFKoolI8 tcgaoQI+KeU7uZtvE4/0Ep8D4JUSJQHbgiFSM2gVKRbQCtxV4vFGcYZN+APvS84RuU EyOkp+R7SQY+nPtPuDYbSuEi1YCpDWvmkYuSWTG0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1482366406; x=1482452806;; bh=QZqUyzCnG7/Sw1ClbVBP3bHd/M9SFlq3cs17j7E2U7w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=cX0Ic2cMEsSLaS8kGDe3SP19szYUPXxYka5RxLldtHr1iuWC8x1im/t/3W6SIgoan xg1A3RgZi/O9TxBnwMqd6mNoUg1z2EfwfoGT1CoG0boSW7yLA7at6qhplK205bSBgI 1mg32oW+bJXlZOGFJKLFE5CDNEuDtpfGVXVhkB9k=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:51 -0800
To: Philip Homburg <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:26:48 -0000

Hi Philip,
At 08:09 21-12-2016, Philip Homburg wrote:
>The point of my proposal was to make an option per subscriber.


>The most sane way to deal with systems that reject or otherwise discard mail
>that fails DMARC checks is to rewrite the From.


>So the only sensible way forward is to have a per subscriber option.

A per-subscriber option makes matters easier.

>So is that one mailing list typical, or just a bunch of people who like to
>reject mail?

Alexey posted some statistics about all the IETF mailing lists at

That one mailing list is not typical.  I don't have access to the 
data at the SMTP level to comment about messages from the mailing 
list which are rejected by receiving mail servers.

>But apart from that, you are saying that for at least that one list, if
>you send a mail to the list with a 'p=reject' then 40% of the subscribers are
>not going to see that message.

No.  I am saying that 40% of the subscribers are receiving messages 
from the mailing list through mail systems which advertise DMARC 
policies for the domain names which those subscribers are using.

S. Moonesamy