Re: Yahoo breaks every mailing list in the world including the IETF's

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 18 May 2014 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6795A1A01E8 for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.802
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wQeJyNAvoBby for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478F51A01DF for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4IIE6du006916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1400436859; bh=3MHe/rd3cqMPJVbfB0Oz+NLvWgS3j3/LNTctZXb44Yc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=v0fOfkM9je4RdTGMHyJooVluhuFoZTsRw1MYiRZPnnvjxRlMpm035KmTeMPRueYzF EkU9psAkkinYUKYPIeBBbDS/I3nL2xdS0x6UPNW+NkYs/SbZVx/0wlQxigm/WJJal7 mhkn5Qz5942KMqXs+YxaEHpYrgIKpol7VPDDQsQ4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1400436859;; bh=3MHe/rd3cqMPJVbfB0Oz+NLvWgS3j3/LNTctZXb44Yc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=FErc0RBxseOmcTyxYWAoDFb8/fIfuQYuS+EjqFsNC6IJhPfQ+F6JJ+DMIHuh1DlJS XihniJGYUI1Tc558/pdOX7GCpKeMITsG2nOpKNhYnOOkzWwV8BLUTZgYmypPVjrNnD VCJs4ridIhWX5aavRmTLcW6bOc6gTWcTBMugJ6lg=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 01:14:30 -0700
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Yahoo breaks every mailing list in the world including the IETF's
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi=eKby_7erZ6=MrwfSAJwt7HewALKHz38dWGp7gvGv+A@mail.g>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Eric Dynamic <>,
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: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:14:32 -0000

Hi Phillip,
At 10:04 17-05-2014, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>Yet more special pleading.


>A legitimate argument against DMARC would be 'Here is a research study
>based on empirical evidence that shows DMARC does not help'', it might
>not be persuasive but it would be a valid argument to have. I am


>I find the arguments that IETF should ignore the impact of DMARC
>unpersuasive. We have changed email repeatedly in response to non
>standards compliant actions taken by the spam senders. So there is a
>precedent for responding to malicious actions, why would we treat
>non-malicious actions differently?

The significant change I can think of is the MSA/MTA split.  That was 
in 1998.  There is a specification violation in response to a DMARC 
policy as implementers do have to decide whether to provide a fix or 
ignore the issue.  There are also operational issues, e.g.  Should 
the IETF ignore the impact of all this?  Frankly, I don't know.  It 
is a significant amount of work to assess how much of a problem this is.

S. Moonesamy