Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Fri, 18 April 2014 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BAE1A01BB for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeInXhu0-ftH for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707B91A0139 for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hm4so1056533wib.8 for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JeE+sMXEIXJq4P224JtCi8nmjj+3VNbagHPUM85ypbw=; b=BgnIW8LMubvPVG8DHCe3C5Z9REAy5Wps1UHuZ1IuD23OAdJztNNnxs3hjztz4NMbh3 W00De+8IwNxHyxqNqAt3tkJD+bmGsjgOi+b814V4qh43k2g4sZtV3RDRtCcD/sTLXjRT Bsp5hRme+tr65JHlRsjTfSCtkdvqQEMeVM4c6Y0GXu1UYp2NOKDd1pwIgv9XJcUM9mxK Y88Zb0AiPXdGvze8pSaTn7HV2LNLe4Wk3DWaxMAeJ9XgLiTgPAQzgZTKXHd4QLBL9hfi DdDTeidgj02SZbsJtEubxQNRKe9f+UcnwVYPs4JnN1abtQNdbrrJ/mtHx2eoeorZTrGr j1IQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id gu4mr3712175wib.26.1397852104921; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3babd329999704f756ce27
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, Pete Resnick <>, John R Levine <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:15:10 -0000

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:

> And I'd suggest that if MUA's do evolve in that manner, maybe it's a
> hint that the problem which the DMARC cheerleaders tried to sweep away
> as "not a problem" really *is* a problem that users really care about.
> And I would hope that in the future, they don't once again try to do
> something that only meets their own parochial interests, and ignores
> everyone elses' concerns.

There are some rather broad brush strokes here, and I'm running out of
steam trying to keep the record straight.  I'll try once more:

As John and others have already said, DMARC works fine for specific use
cases.  It's already been in use by other large operators like Bank of
America, PayPal, Facebook, and others for quite some time, with no visible
impact.  The results for them have been very positive.  Google also has it
turned on part-way for the domain their employees use.

The difference here is that Yahoo has users that send mail where those
others do not.