Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 25 Dec 2016, at 1:14, Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> In your letter dated Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:45:12 -0500 you wrote:
>> As I mentioned before, for me, the most usable option is avoiding
>> message modification of any kind, which leaves the origin DKIM
>> signature valid.  I've not seen anyone comment on whether that's
>> workable for IETF WG lists (it works well enough for *this* list).
> 
> For me, the current behavior of the ietf lists is perfectly fine.

For me it’s not fine. And not just because I use gmail. If someone whose email provider has a DMARC p=reject record sends a message to the list and half the subscribers don’t see that message, the conversation gets disrupted even if the other half sees it. 

Check out the mailing list for Token Binding working group. The most frequent posters are from Microsoft and Google, and I have to fish their messages out of the spam folder every few days to keep up with the conversation. That disrupts the entire working group, not just the people with the DMARC record or the people whose provider respects DMARC headers.

> It is very nice to see the mailing list in the subject. It is also
> very nice to have a proper From header.
> 
> That's why I proposed a per-subscriber setting such that only those
> who are actually stupid enough to reject or otherwise drop mail based
> on DMARC have to see mangled mailing list traffic.

“Stupid”?  Most of us have the choice of a corporate mail account where we have no control over policy, and a public provider mail account where we also have no control over policy. Yes, we can install our own mail server and set whatever policy we would like. That is not a viable option for most people

> There no technical reason for a one-size-fits-all solution. So let's
> stop investigating those types of solutions.

 A per-receiver setting is one extra step for new subscribers. That’s something I’d rather avoid.

Yoav