IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 13 April 2014 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 152771A0221 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.943
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 j9TKfV6ueDso for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CE21A021D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37441 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2014 19:55:11 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2014 19:55:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=60fd.534aeba0.k1404; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=0lZGDVokqhcql7SAOqjZfwygflr/1V+xXorcFQ1VXn4=; b=m5WbFc4D23iOSql53V8Xo9J/YntHUwjqt5muv2R29T8t6jPJuMTkPZiTvns6qobc+Aqq99F2ZLxrnjo07E5r8zmKtZy1elNai6zo3FesD49k00yJnnjROFfQLUCPvL+Etuyl9TkkQdRrb/ko+ilUg3d+V6cvZMicZv9QbABELWrBARY4IyWBnPkR+QXE8+orTVqh7iHD3Qtn2+VA7y9qVE6HMT+PY/RkPc+XeT3I3JEwnV7hBnTiDs3w8JYSISWi
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=60fd.534aeba0.k1404; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=0lZGDVokqhcql7SAOqjZfwygflr/1V+xXorcFQ1VXn4=; b=iwPnPU1ZnJGMjwRiofMwY80ZUhvZ3q8bRPgvnoRpWWIusRp76EpTNCnC8jFhwBmpdKgT0XK9dpVq+FRQ7MKTlv1x1OyWrtpvYa9321zirkyB6JovNrs/qYkAx3DVptBIgVlJbEvw6OI8llAL6Ld/+vcnDzpKbMezomok6nvDL5rMBMvdBUBAGNrmH1DdAikXgPwiWTDWSszwNbxSdwtg6feN/VairfbuvSKZxm3/MyqAF14FXvsxK+2b2yNwmE3B
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:54:50 -0000
Message-ID: <20140413195450.24828.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-Reply-To: <534A9901.8040907@dcrocker.net>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/exCk61p3bLsx4BQk8elFQNDlC0U
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 13 Apr 2014 19:55:19 -0000

In article <534A9901.8040907@dcrocker.net> you write:
>On 4/12/2014 3:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Could somebody explain what that means and whether it can be used to
>> mitigate the current issue? Or are substantial changes needed
>> in the fundamentals of DMARC?
> ...

>In other words, it means that the receiving mail system whitelisted a 
>mailing list.

Yeah.  The problem is that as we are now seeing from the Yahoo fiasco,
receivers don't whitelist mailing lists, leading to all sorts of
damage to mail that has been working perfectly well and that, if my
experience is any guide, recipients want a lot more than the bulk
blasts that p=reject was designed to handle.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email