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

Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Fri, 18 April 2014 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.org>
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 61DED1A01F0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 DtMDU4nISQkS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B392E1A01B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tytso@thunk.org>) id 1WbHob-0006Ls-5l; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:03:25 +0000
Received: by closure.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 88BDA5801C3; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:03:24 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; t=1397862204; bh=Fo3rATCv6hSnaUR/CgTHl27VLuBITTGSv83JF0q02V0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ft1yq3j9vcrGE0R1++ZG/7v2vZLZ+OF/pzsp+s4RMHF1v8nco5yW647rN0Y8PRFhK zkV98+EV/+3hBwSsDwpoUqmHWeTwixlCdO5SDvISeHDemSoTiF471Ux1Z0zfFQoEdE j5hO8J+30dt6Iawn4n+mnDTrKxLy5+IKHF3aNOpE=
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:03:24 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Message-ID: <20140418230324.GB6166@thunk.org>
References: <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/X3kOsYM3J5Hj17uhsv5GX8YjlZg
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf@ietf.org
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, 18 Apr 2014 23:03:34 -0000

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 03:35:09PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> Right, so the input here from the operators is, "Mailing list traffic is not
> important enough to us to prevent us from deploying an anti-spam solution
> that solves the vast majority of our problems with little cost or
> difficulty. The MLM software authors will have to deal with this problem on
> their end." 

... and then the operators should not be surprised if the people
modifying the MLM software do something which is best for them, and
which not necessarily best for the interest of the users of certain
operators.

Which is the default when neither side is willing compromise, and
everyone is reduced to taking unilateral action.

If you want to call that a failure of the standards process, I can
only agree.  I suspect the only difference is how the blame for the
failure gets allocated.  But at the end of the day, it is what it is.
Some people will use one kind of messaging, and say it's all the
mailing list people's fault, and some other people will use a
different messaging, and say it's all Yahoo's fault.

And the users will be stuck in the middle....  and presumably they as
their own indpendent actors, will do what is in their best interest.

Cheers,

					- Ted