Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F02129706 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 9DcvAFKqYeFN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A97F5129715 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c13so19354243lfg.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DLc38FeGPAzInPboFMQHi9nc9FrpdDBZd79dH0XZIa0=; b=XaSLsPsC7XJjGbXrVJ91D/7UrbEQLifo78YGU1Yx9XQTXN1Ffgydg+2pKhyPu2GPkx l8HWXwY8l/kQPsbSpOK+gvd5dRugmDBW3tpy7YmCZOG1nBtdc1TI+tJGvwJto+BeFwyS QW+X1IA2GIDhO/7FF1WNcU8yQDuo8SFoalKa2KGBi3J3A0cbzMKALl015QU5dl0wxPVY GNAeByXN5QyYupmmLS/Uojsjl4RSaL1fTxFFVXClwPxmlzmD/sh9j1h3F1B83x7ldvUI EqIRO+g7vTsdF7DxafH2yCGXXg7aP68ExpZW9gzFplP69nZ7FZqRPpJ6opyM6Yhhd0p4 ZwGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DLc38FeGPAzInPboFMQHi9nc9FrpdDBZd79dH0XZIa0=; b=D7CqStWXLqQ7ISASK3jjhRb0mkpKtwrZavI486ZIgq/sfnUIYc5ObSiAQH1oQKcR0Q ridI8FcLpLQbwBHZ0B6hNVKMLi9HaOv63s5RdZuz56vG72caF78vV5Uyw8gA8pbnZOnj 76vZWRKTkr4pP7q070or54FFpeIz8QCJPYKRVFemQllNIbAML2XZfTsE6aqEwrdFCZL3 YYYShOFLNGrMof1M7uja26P2I6RFyVfkeBx0eat1PKwrF5AL5lXjE4c1Z+ltWqfWibMC HS49iI66zjJfv1uVCkkSDsEFGPS/XNktMms5Trha0nibu267LDEmU8buTzldeEnWDfMW iPCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcEQ3SlEnxKmyzyY6gwaDEqJdUiErKKaiNv2J0b9YB/u2FLC0DVQwANha6X1TzWZ+OC7Nly6aGxCU1P+g==
X-Received: by 10.25.202.73 with SMTP id h9mr766163lfj.8.1478109037496; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.160.202 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20161102174342.67143.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CAPt1N1=_jvrNbhxDyWXpJszUtqRZEEouRibwgWD1aY5wfhsX_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20161102174342.67143.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:49:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=bC96HfVN2s2ZcQjaOtmut2ZTbbKWdGG4mEQT6uOPsGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X3hzmYtdWYffNVE-wFolX8F7ctU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:50:42 -0000

I think that really what is going on here is that a very small number
of people who talk a lot have prevented forward progress fixing an
issue that significantly affects many IETF participants who aren't
subscribed to ietf@ because of the noise factor and hence haven't seen
the discussion.

The ability to send replies off-list is something I would personally
like to see made harder, because in most cases these replies could
have been skipped with no damage, and in practice if someone really
wants to send an off-list reply it's pretty easy.   I would just as
soon not get duplicates when people don't trim replies.   FWIW, when I
reply to this list and Cc you, John, the mail bounces due to a DMARC
failure, so in practice that feature is already broken.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <CAPt1N1=_jvrNbhxDyWXpJszUtqRZEEouRibwgWD1aY5wfhsX_Q@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>>There's a pretty clear ops problem here that could be solved by simply
>>detecting addresses with DMARC and rewriting the From: headers on
>>those messages.   This would eliminate all problems immediately.
>
> Assuming you mean replacing the actual author's address with the
> list's address, that has the cost of breaking the way mailing lists
> have worked for 30 years, and in particular making replies to the
> author unworkable.  Many people would strenously disagree that this
> "eliminates all problems", but merely replaces one problem with
> another.
>
> There are other workarounds with different costs and benefits, e.g.,
> the one I use that rewrites DMARC'ed addresses into local temporary
> forwarding addresses, in my case in the trendy dmarc.fail domain.
> That lets people keep using lists the way they have but requires more
> mail system hackery than most list managers are able or willing to do.
>
> Again, this has been discussed at great length here and on many
> mail-related lists.  Please see the archives.
>
> R's,
> John