Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

Dave Crocker <> Sun, 18 December 2016 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49CC12965A for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.792
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RO4gNxWDoZpX for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E70A12949B for <>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uBIMZMxo015325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:35:22 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1482100522; bh=DqUPyc+R9B3oflUODlE2wc/UYcedWOsIVgXHerj5LuA=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bPpfeDF7CHGj0PTJZgfHxhcx9MHJ1mpj/UA9D1E3LTn8PM/Jgsd6ZaNYnxyP6EeDe dZOIYvMTEySP0Id3cC1RQ5yGOgFp+bpnGimdOvFRMC4PzmMKRAg0W5lpcAERZWPjJr EhlafQTkrHPIq6P7s/pbaQeKLkfpR+lv9Ox6xZgc=
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
To: Theodore Ts'o <>, John R Levine <>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:33:58 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF general list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:34:11 -0000

On 12/18/2016 2:24 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>    So when David Crocker tells us that
> the mail providers aren't going to back down, regardless of whether or
> not it is true, *of course* the the mail providers will try to say
> that, because they are trying to intimate people into knuckling under
> and accepting DMARC.

Ted, you are ascribing more concern about this by the providers than I'm 

Rather than seeking to invoke some sort of mystical assessment of 
corporate intent, I suggest you do a pragmatic evaluation of actual 
leverage and formulate a practical plan based on it.  Then see who lines 
up in support and follows through with useful action.

> It's all basic power negotiating

Or not.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking