Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 17 December 2016 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534F81294BD for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o1b_ltOTs23h for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6160412940E for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n6so112886808qtd.1 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=TIBXdNinrbvqcvc/+3zUT6yyb8cGZLvw+0JN9+LgaFo=; b=ld05EV2NAzc6br7gTjFUM1nvpH1+xdZt+Lre7z3EmSzhVZQ642BsTUE0MpyUol3Po7 2IEpYk0LY7V0QtTRNj8EzLAiz6a6UfUZwWyFCci+xKCupRQ2F5JmR8vAQLxqRKHkgMBa 6zF/KZFZUJUsB+NikvMiVr7bNWAyYQGI/GIwbAPdiCKVK+tuwWmQByqcSBg8AnCGk0MB SKa/x1+v4+rFkCfAcaPIO6dbbF9Aglz4g3wR4S8NNOgQg9tlDh+o062MBGI8xb5tWcTz ChgXIiuZFfo4bCYQ2UrKAZsevXPZOdIHvSEyRaLhzsAKcuZd+me8ISuDVYqEcovWwTIS OnKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=TIBXdNinrbvqcvc/+3zUT6yyb8cGZLvw+0JN9+LgaFo=; b=tBqUwx7WXwhPp1IbreiFVYUyUaC26vgIjCF8d6z/7nJ0gwmyKMj7vKw9Xg9HR9sdE9 Y7TsAbuTqphwx6VlRHsQwCvrHZVf+Gczw9856W3puQb6eNgS8vDWfUOCaBDCHWUiTf1x q3tfZcPd0nvijaawSaGg20Vzd6aubBJLv9sA+EgYT28O0TaWwcLVy8cCaZwVF7f1Tsgr rRJJ00LJKfeOc2sYx50LVR2gHkBeMzVbcp9O7C2Sl6sP5mVD8tIoSzqcHVd5zSpz2tjq H61Wbiq8OIDnfl5KDqqfT23bn77i5265WsRAdJRwauPrrRdrCT7i4JFq7IqfXv5cWABW tFSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJAAFUWoos6yd2mgBi1kvvGLHDW1xg/YPWWfM75c0D17hXvLm+qittgTBdWlG0WBg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l42mr7767571qtc.271.1481989969138; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h43sm6347273qth.29.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D658FEE-80FF-46B7-8C45-DB38381D90BC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:52:46 -0500
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: IETF Discussion List <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
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: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:52:52 -0000

On Dec 17, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Yoav Nir <> wrote:
> The group you want to feel the pain are the administrators who add DMARC records, but other than spamming them with error reports, there’s not much we can do. I don’t think the administrators at Yahoo care too much whether their users are able to use IETF mailing lists or not.

Strictly speaking, what causes these providers pain is their customers leaving.   However, given that Yahoo recently had a billion accounts hacked, I suspect that the IETF’s DMARC settings are not going to provide any comparatively strong motivation for leaving.   And unfortunately one of the big DMARC sites is <>; I really doubt anyone is going to quit their job at Google so they can participate in the IETF, and while we can certainly make it impossible for them to participate without using a different mail provider, the question is, is this the right way to spread the pain?

It’s certainly one of the options we discussed when this came up earlier.

BTW, speaking of obnoxious header munging, it would be a kindness, Randy Bush, if you would stop munging the headers on your replies to the IETF mailing list to say "IETF Disgust."   I find this really offensive, and consequently I have to go in and re-edit the name back to "IETF Discussion List" to undo your vandalism.   If the list so disgusts you, why not unsubscribe?