Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 19 April 2014 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 48E9B1A01BF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 wItHEay2FG28 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:53:27 -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 08BED1A0167 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 46741 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2014 00:53:21 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent; s=b694.5351c901.k1404; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=OXGmk+EsmuIPp8JNkM9EZrfGlOlUGPQ/pGH/m4tT7vQ=; b=Mg7rUE+X27Eraj6LrBFlH4cYll8mCtoB9ROMHuCgU/6B3SfBhsuOAV7RQgfNFWtpV6tPGzb8l9/7UaWzJ6iVBp6n3+61axEPUpHf0Cn7Zh8sLQrLMYKQxaEJmm0770UXErOUDK4Gjk11D0UiDCsOjf0urXGIvmEbqv3VtE6HVqKEN3Sd58Gu3o2mOMgr1wfx+uFxMo6vJSHMD39TQADpwrNqyE3D0cMfxAeGvEeAkdUwE5cnQr8rYOtG223UrAxq
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:user-agent; s=b694.5351c901.k1404; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=OXGmk+EsmuIPp8JNkM9EZrfGlOlUGPQ/pGH/m4tT7vQ=; b=C2eYzn7x46JKNYfrT6+We5EHkLgVjfQMYNvZKIM6cJg7LRSnU8lJeCwPo2PIaqaR6PpwpwbkQHSIqpRceYHnPn67JfM8ejhR6zsAbPhBVmZYp6/pwpFkVXMAMvRquVgx89YDhgY+F/yZhAwcNNNykJb9HyhTtrssUg078YOFvogn4QjJqPoukOVf3ucfd2MPzLsT4Wkz8qwKdjPv6aMT/mwLh5QmRJRZxOckg/IxwbDCp7ofwMnrR/zpKy3xhqDs
Received: from jlevine.local ([65.114.90.17]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 19 Apr 2014 00:53:21 -0000
Date: 18 Apr 2014 19:53:20 -0500
Message-ID: <5351C900.1060803@taugh.com>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why mailing lists
References: <20140417181815.8A5871ACD1@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <9451.1397772992@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwa0a4nDAdCHkkMJdeemsj+cezcmH3+59CvhF8q7B72ryg@mail.gmail.com> <53518F69.90703@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53518F69.90703@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fmm0z6N4v9OuK_FWEVjRS_rlHgI
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 00:53:31 -0000

> This would not exactly enhance goodguy's reputation,
> or Yahoo's for that matter. I realise it isn't the exploit
> that Yahoo is trying to stop, but it suggests to me that
> DMARC is only plugging one small hole in a very leaky dam.

No kidding.  DMARC is only useful because most spammers and phishers are 
remarkably stupid.  But not all of them.

R's,
John