Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 22 December 2016 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC9E129A90 for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=qx4pZZWm; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=aKuIbJSw
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CrSTHlIdPlL3 for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB5A12954D for <>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBMGEkOC002417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:14:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1482423292; x=1482509692; bh=a8ofOR8vAvQ9GifMeBPohLQond07J84sTSl3/wA2ktY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=qx4pZZWmdmVeorCQrBPXVU/ECyOSvYo2mxUEhjhCEL/CTTWLjgnGewt5rmJuhD0Ew +ykLBbpU/iEzj/TLqgmcPa+YT3sOPG8+sXV5PfxgM6NTRdkWFlW0ItmNDPxjFrOLgq t1j7PQ5nKHdwV9gTkPwckYAt5+O3r5gdWcteDA78=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1482423292; x=1482509692;; bh=a8ofOR8vAvQ9GifMeBPohLQond07J84sTSl3/wA2ktY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=aKuIbJSwqYYztKqLDJt3jJEPJcv5Nvm+x8Gg9zX3T36rBkjtsaUAIByZol9iFzCfO T+q4TgUtIuQc6Q3uQdLARPVkBONnRnRmkG/SC7WgrRi7Ejt0cRkPSwQx4px+JwpN3a JTBMy8TA7SUYc7/EqxgPboh3iTUf9CMGzlfhiM1k=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:09:48 -0800
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:14:54 -0000

Hi Ted,
At 07:12 21-12-2016, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>Given that the DMARC "specifcation" isn't even being treated as a
>standard that must be obeyed in all of its particulars by its
>proponents --- the fact that this is being used by its propoonents to
>twist mailers of the IETF --- a standards body --- into knots because
>it is enforcement is random and *not* standardized is, quite frankly,
>amazing to me.

According to a blog article written by Mr Woodcraft, Senior Technical 
Adviser, Government Digital Service, DMARC is "almost an internet 
standard listed as 'Informational' at the The Internet Engineering 
Task Force (IETF), although it's already widely used particularly by 
the larger, consumer-facing email providers".  There was an 
announcement from the Paypal Product and Ecosystem Security Team in 
which there is the following: "the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF) published RFC 7489 for Domain-based Message Authentication 
Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)".  According to the RFC Editor the 
specification was published in the Independent Stream [1], i.e. the 
specification was not been published by the IETF.

The current discussion, as the previous ones, is about whether there 
is a problem affecting IETF mailing list subscribers, and if so, what 
to do about it.  Is that similar to the one discussed in the thread 
at ?

S. Moonesamy