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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 18 December 2016 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 E73DF129524 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:08:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 q4e_hSCFL7zh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B331C12711D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 43125 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2016 22:08:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2016 22:08:55 -0000
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:08:28 -0000
Message-ID: <20161218220828.14035.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
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: <5aa87706-5dbe-e984-e5fa-ccc9168c51ca@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/k1ZgZt3Li0MhBroVXPgyVy1Q3pY>
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: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:08:53 -0000

>Send them a canned message stating that the only solution available
>to them is changing to a different From address that does not have
>this issue. What else can they do?

Conclude that the IETF has jumped the shark* and go do something else.

As I keep asking, how much blood are we prepared to lose here?

R's,
John

* - American TV reference, see Wikipedia for details