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

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.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 C0BE41A035C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, 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 B5uyutjDaCvm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x234.google.com (mail-pd0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086EC1A02B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id v10so2550511pde.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=63kcW5tmfI148lILuJ1sgCsKUKEj2QnI5QP3llygQIw=; b=lq9yvpdHINSlzwMEyxhQ16rZs588qr+EAu+Ie+prVVHTWfGlKFOnTOpkbPSIdKYqS3 2NKF8B0+22hrrm8Cumn5ov32VxmY6ckYLBoMwTlUCrbVFfrfNNWHb2cGgaqt1madFNW5 W/ar92jiSPoVWXJcoCAyy2koDXCYB3LiWCvrT9owkRKLxzLHJAwqakSRccrGwHVQYyeR rdqHMPZfy38qrq8FNgCwr1jnINm0UayhxaA6qDjjfIN9AH6m8WvkfTLsPB4YkStrO5wO I2hK8FCzRTOB0XfvIYfb29+1gWVyp3Ofg5Ki3xnii6MB8w3zzPIrUKpsXjx6xP76fcGp uS/w==
X-Received: by 10.66.230.193 with SMTP id ta1mr4240937pac.29.1398390070856; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:1b80:1046:11f8:ef05:2ff8:3d6c? ([2601:9:1b80:1046:11f8:ef05:2ff8:3d6c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ei4sm11979857pbb.42.2014.04.24.18.41.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7859156.ek3Qf5sxiO@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:41:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <57E35BDB-30DF-4829-A6CE-F1132E0C2EFC@gmail.com>
References: <20140425002622.E6DFA1ACE0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <7859156.ek3Qf5sxiO@scott-latitude-e6320>
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dwzIbUfd-76s1PIZ_aO5BWipjm0
Cc: 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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:41:22 -0000

On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote:
> ...
>> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication
>> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a telecommunications
>> provider by some _outside_ third party.  So in the US a p=reject DMARC
>> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation.
> 
> No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense.  The 1st Amendment to the 
> constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private action.  
> See http://xkcd.com/1357/ .

Dear Scott,

Strongly disagree.  The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by not declaring ISPs common carriers.  People's ability to meet and freely associate is now being steadily eroded by policies hostile to decades of neighborhood and small communities' normal meeting practices. This has nothing to do with someone being abusive and shunned.  This is about ISPs taking greater control over content carried on the Internet.  The usurping of control over Internet use is very likely to put democracy in greater peril as content control is taken over by an oligarchy.

The TPA scheme would have allowed DMARC to shun abusers without impacting perfectly legitimate communication methods being used in support of our growing communities.

Regards,
Douglas Otis