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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 13 April 2014 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 BDB341A0165 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 n1-VqsyDdPS8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B99C1A015B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3DE4ctT012705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:04:42 -0700
Message-ID: <534A9901.8040907@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:02:41 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z1Sa4UY5fA0g5w29LSKxa-ilOyU
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:04:50 -0000

On 4/12/2014 3:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Could somebody explain what that means and whether it can be used to
> mitigate the current issue? Or are substantial changes needed
> in the fundamentals of DMARC?


It means that a receiving system, which otherwise complies with DMARC 
policy records, has chosen to deviate from a domain owner's request to 
reject messages that fail DMARC, by virtue of knowing that it went 
through a mailing list that was trusted.

In other words, it means that the receiving mail system whitelisted a 
mailing list.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net