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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 17 December 2016 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA8F12997D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:17:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=ETvE1QUr; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=T8tJOCIH
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 aZGx4FiS3BH0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC4812997A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBHBGx2G002239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:17:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1481973425; x=1482059825; bh=Ul9fOVkhGJR7kYMn07SpWG+hdkXz7hGBXs7nTFJL6oY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ETvE1QUrR9ereH0yu0D7++XVWaR02m/Ub0ngulpScNsyoMkwLdPxQWpIdffxnEtbV zFzBfpkcRN6j8K+wBMRZn/SvYoKzVF477p4FcJ/QMEHU/yi+aRlub4eNZpvRkTFKeM h79aZdr+1G7yDiKw3LHBNOxwbpAh2grXOTdb4394=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1481973425; x=1482059825; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Ul9fOVkhGJR7kYMn07SpWG+hdkXz7hGBXs7nTFJL6oY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=T8tJOCIHzZTxGg2qYqNk3bqSCKgLbmqS+8xDqAPIvxnBzXN/G75hq7CyuEYxqUmYq yh9zRAJpjP1je9JWjmv5eGFmAsUX0iYE4af/oD81qZjtBKo4n54R7Mon4L0DCjFI/O RcfdHvlPUccF9VoDnSRumWxCxUbqswcewYASCsNk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161217022643.0e830e78@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:15:43 -0800
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
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
In-Reply-To: <25431.1481725548@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <25431.1481725548@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gsjMwZhOX0HMdzsFdpKGriJe3C4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Dec 2016 11:17:07 -0000

Hi Michael,
At 06:25 14-12-2016, Michael Richardson wrote:
>It is unfortunate that the IETF hasn't shown more leadership here.

Please see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg99781.html

>Auto-learning address books are going to have a problem with From lines that
>say:
>
>         First Last Name Via LISTNAME <listaddress@example.com>
>
>since this will hijack "First Last" to point to the list, which is going to
>cause all manner of email leaks.  Maybe we can do better there.

The above format is already being used by at least one non-IETF 
mailing list.  Pointing the author's name to the list address is not 
a good idea.  People looking for a solution will implement what they 
can find in the absence of a standard.  At some point in time that 
solution becomes the real standard even if an ill-timed standard is published.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy