RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 1A8511A04A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 oui0Tn5LXHy4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF56B1A044C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.146.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3F0YZHJ008086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397522087; bh=BMCaWw1H8TJi3cgRaFZ8Tll+pFJerrf+Kpc5ZPaUsqg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=s5vRMeFhgU+mOJHzT2wIhVJRdZFgL/q/eqEVH/GlSOAzT3Cumf4Ho4l9V/xEVqU9x bIPDc0qXAJK9ZGDD5xIk01DbtPqjb1dKs4clTR7KHwi656VKzlkVLsI44NNhdIPdgW F1kfCnACKQYC1iSfKI+jRnUuO2aHcpXuxfZi5Ftw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397522087; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BMCaWw1H8TJi3cgRaFZ8Tll+pFJerrf+Kpc5ZPaUsqg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=RcHYxNe2I2gDJp2+zZKFNPNBYsLfpgxTYOCestO8kekmT33r/Ke86j3LNhXF5w5sS p68xagjXbEW1WtRM9HyEIbOrr+YOXN0/ybdR6bBQAFYkoteBnGUMp+SGXn9MQNqfOf gVUz1GdmhU/7pllfxrZmAViavclsLGWPsV75wC3I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140414153913.0d0fe480@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:50:08 -0700
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D45766@USCLES544.agna.am greetings.com>
References: <20140414024956.26078.qmail@joyce.lan> <534B524F.4050206@dcrocker.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132327560.26258@joyce.lan> <E0B7196CB2603B80BBEC21AF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132346420.26386@joyce.lan> <1EBDF5239EEE5202D3837D25@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534B9760.90301@dougbarton.us> <534BFA0D.7000404@meetinghouse.net> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D45766@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Y7v_LEv-ScrlLZh-KWzIrRDQR4U
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, 15 Apr 2014 00:34:58 -0000

Hi Mike,
At 09:53 14-04-2014, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>The fact is that a vocal constituency led by John Levine made it 
>extremely clear that MLMs were out of scope and there was zero 
>interest on the part of the MLM community in discussing ways in 
>which MLMs could be made to work in an email authentication 
>framework even if there were any MLM operators willing to do so. His 
>stated solution has been and continues to be that list operators 
>should drop any participants who post from a domain publishing 
>p=reject and to prevent any new participants from joining from a 
>domain that publishes p=reject. The record is quite clear on this 
>and is available to anyone who wishes to peruse email archives, blog 
>posts, etc. I view this as local policy and up to the list operator. 
>I'm not confident how well this will ultimately work for many 
>organizations the operators manage lists for. Just to be clear, the 
>preceding is more of a question than an assertion.

I don't think that there is zero interest from the Mailman community 
(that's my interpretation of the Mailman discussions).  Mailman 
developers do not participate in the IETF.  There is an employee of a 
well-known company who has been arguing for changes to the mailing 
list management software since a long time.  The Mailman patch for 
DMARC was written by Jim Popovitch and Phil Pennock ( 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2013-October/023349.html 
and 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2013-November/023384.html 
).

Mailing list traffic is not significant in comparison with overall 
mail traffic.  At the risk of sounding insensitive there isn't a 
business case for some providers to support mailing list traffic.  I 
would consider John Levine's point about making it out of 
scope.  There's still the problem of what to do about mailing lists.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy