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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 18 May 2014 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 6795A1A01E8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wQeJyNAvoBby for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478F51A01DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.156.60]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (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; d=opendkim.org; 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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1400436859; i=@elandsys.com; 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: <6.2.5.6.2.20140517225044.0bb15010@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 01:14:30 -0700
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
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 mail.com>
References: <53752DAC.4090305@transbay.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140516234651.0b808458@resistor.net> <CAMm+Lwi=eKby_7erZ6=MrwfSAJwt7HewALKHz38dWGp7gvGv+A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dj3CyQiZs4WqVcnuMIoMOd5MAMU
Cc: Eric Dynamic <ecsd@transbay.net>, 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: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:14:32 -0000

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

[snip]

>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

Yes.

>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. 
http://www.it.cornell.edu/services/guides/email/issues.cfm  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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy