Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 24 December 2016 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 B6144129641 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:45:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 GLrNARWBdZEH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F6512962F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2604:2000:1382:81a2:300e:e520:130e:a1c0] (unknown [IPv6:2604:2000:1382:81a2:300e:e520:130e:a1c0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19258284B55 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 18:45:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ietf-dane@dukhovni.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2y3z5alnh.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:45:12 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <F8D60ECB-C291-41D1-B313-10F641BE755D@dukhovni.org>
References: <001801d25d6a$4c267130$e4735390$@huitema.net> <20161223174224.9677.qmail@ary.lan> <m2y3z5alnh.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/k2fPOr098s6hYqSL2zYVwVxyXNo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 24 Dec 2016 18:45:16 -0000

> On Dec 24, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> "If you want to participate in IETF mailing lists, you should be able to
> receive messages from and send messages to the IETF which follow
> Internet standards."

Sure, but, ultimately, what's the goal of this discussion?  Presumably
some workable configuration of the list managers that serves the needs
of IETF list members (possibly with some adjustment of how participants
interact with the lists).

So, if this discussion is to get anywhere, there needs to emerge a
consensus on the usability requirements for the lists.  At least
the following need to be understood:

   1. Must WG lists add [WG] subject tags?  Or can this be left to
      subscriber etiquette?

   2. Are message footers are a requirement?

   3. Is modification of the "From" header acceptable?

Discussion of whether to exclude subscribers from domains with
DMARC policy are not necessary if some acceptable combination
of the choices in 1, 2, 3 (or perhaps other options I left out)
works with DMARC and retains list usability.

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).

-- 
	Viktor.