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

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Thu, 17 April 2014 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 48E7B1A00FB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 q-JTb3GUdGR1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (unknown [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7764A1A00A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6QXI8ARLS006P6S@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6O0FD8M9S00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P6QXI47QVW00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:49:46 -0500" <534FEA0A.4050607@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D45766@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <20140414214949.32126.qmail@joyce.lan> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D460CB@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404142150430.32657@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwbPMm_i0fqNSGQPv=xZaiNASy=icsRNudaNJ_3PNtX3Og@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404151832460.38826@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwZUptJVw85T2FjB2HRGoOvcOUHKiQXeadM0QE9BsFVM9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzxpwS+nR9wRGOzU_83f7XabMr0pwB5x-MHrqM-28r80kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzzw9mufrTCOBQOkRrZU6wOM21X8Y=FUEKf=qnzS9VESjA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404161654430.2065@joyce.lan> <534F1183.6060702@qti.qualcomm.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404162346400.2194@joyce.lan> <534F5E67.1010307@qti.qualcomm.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404170824350.2692@joyce.lan> <534FEA0A.4050607@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cKksI4PS-1yOhH0U-w0KTZNC6pA
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:21:07 -0000

> On 4/17/14 7:29 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> > Now I'm totally confused.  How does that help me as a sender
> > distinguish between a good mailing list that is resending real mail
> > from Yahoo and an evil mailing list that is sending phishes?

> We're now *way* into technical discussion. Let's take those to
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc shall we?

How about we take it some place else? I really don't want this intermingled
with discussions of things like how to revise the current DMARC specifications
that hopefully are taking place on that list.

This is especially true if you're talking about what I think you're talking
about: Senders discovering additional semantics of the recipients they are
sending to and then decorating the message accordingly. This is a fairly
radical idea which, if it pans out, may well have utility extending far beyond
DMARC.

				Ned