RE: DMARC and ietf.org

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> Mon, 21 July 2014 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <MHammer@ag.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 901FA1A0119 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] 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 7bGEajczTFHx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F5F41A0169 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES531.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:18:30 -0400
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: DMARC and ietf.org
Thread-Topic: DMARC and ietf.org
Thread-Index: AQHPpDWABbIO3jagMEGxRWn20hnh65uqF/4AgAERXYD//74JMA==
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:18:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507DEDE09@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <20140721025132.3111.qmail@joyce.lan> <53CD6585.3090406@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <53CD6585.3090406@isdg.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.230]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X-x0_Z_QRdpGgyK3KNz4bb51AT8
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, 21 Jul 2014 19:18:35 -0000

John is correct. There is no consensus on how mailing lists should deal with DMARC problems, notwithstanding what rfc6377 says about DKIM. ADSP never gained enough real world implementation for there to be a meaningful consensus. One need only look at the discussion threads on the IETF (and other) list(s) following the publication of DMARC p=reject by several large mailbox providers to see the diverse range of views.

While I disagree with John on some things, in this case he is 100% dead on. To pretend otherwise is to do a disservice to the mailing list community and the mail community at large.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:10 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
> 
> 
> On 7/20/2014 10:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> I thought the preferred solution was to rewrite the From for those
> >>> users only.
> >>
> >> I think that remains controversial. ...
> >
> > There is no consensus at all on how mailing lists should deal with
> > DMARC problems.
> 
> Not quite John.
> 
> The specific DMARC protocol aside, with any author domain policies in
> general, whether it was SSP, ADSP or any DKIM author domain signing
> authorization protocol (DSAP),  there was a consensus RFC built document
> that provided the basic guideline for mailing list operations in dealing with
> restrictive DKIM signing policies. It used ADSP as the "DSAP" of the day. But
> replace ADSP with DMARC and the design recommendations apply:
> 
>     RFC6377  DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377
> 
> And overall, the basic guideline was to support the framework, not ignore it
> as it never existed and instead pushed for breaking the security protocol.
> 
> As a LIST developer and implementor of the "DSAP" protocol, it was simple:
> 
>   1) Deny Restrictive Domains from Subscribing
>   2) Deny Restrictive Domains from List Submission
>   3) Pottery Principle "You break it, you own it" - Resign mail
> 
> That is all at the top level that needed to be done and all the above really has
> nothing to do with a mailing list but the mail receiver verifier and the
> outbound mail server.
> 
> This is about not wanting to do a basic author domain signature authorization
> lookup for any kind of mail service.
> 
> --
> HLS
>