Re: DMARC and ietf.org

John Payne <john@sackheads.org> Mon, 26 September 2016 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john@sackheads.org>
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 BD6A512B200 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 uaZktyLXA5gX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chumdrop.sackheads.org (chumdrop.sackheads.org [159.203.76.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C3612B202 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chumdrop.sackheads.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB66154E70; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chumdrop.sackheads.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chumdrop.sackheads.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IcOrI9WTWRgj; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.36] (c-73-218-202-37.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [73.218.202.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: john@sackheads.org) by chumdrop.sackheads.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9ECE415394A; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160924011121.3021.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:23:22 -0400
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 496589002.185598-bfee5d34947451615e6662d43a95c25b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B22A3FAB-1393-4E6E-96E3-955CC42D03CC@sackheads.org>
References: <20160924011121.3021.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bMiZusUqNZyuyOuZTaMAMDdlsJg>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:23:26 -0000

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:11 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Google has repeatedly said that they're not going to turn on DMARC
>>> until ARC is available.
>> 
>> They already have for google.com <http://google.com/>… gmail is probably a much bigger impact, but I
>> discovered google.com’s p=reject when we accidentally turned on DMARC enforcement :/
> 
> Well, yeah.  The domain google.com is used by about 57,000 Google
> employees while the domain gmail.com is used by about a billion (yes,
> really) Gmail users.

I think my point is that there are already plenty of users posting to IETF lists with p=reject.  There can’t be many recipients enforcing those policies,  as I heard pretty quickly after we accidentally turned it on.