Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Mon, 19 December 2016 00:54 UTC
Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.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 57AA212940F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:54:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thunk.org
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 5DMQZwsAhSDD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 064791289C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:54:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=PLPPGj5BJW64pfZSVrZU0HvRAW2bOqJGslMqtDW0CX8=; b=cKtqJOIUDg5PIRBN3sOAHtBlHopLrV6/mKXUR1WRM5atTOzGmZXnabCcd3x8LJ1NEUq5wLtUjpHHsmATX8FuvbhDuyesddrP/80WYH+bWyYn1t8m0QWEbBSsS4w+ucuesG1r7qEzXlURxvn0ytdd7PlAuMJS4+PsgfK249yVV3c=;
Received: from root (helo=callcc.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <tytso@thunk.org>) id 1cImDy-00083W-8f; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:54:42 +0000
Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 6364DC00788; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:54:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:54:11 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
Message-ID: <20161219005411.w5tmps5i46lnkydy@thunk.org>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <20161218055834.he6gkupqp5xqlvml@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <20161218065905.5g66jgkvtckydmry@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <20161218222427.7phtcg7mhpypcwnb@thunk.org> <499b8679-37bc-36eb-3ac8-9d99570f42df@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l67Z-4v9YRCt_uKA1UvAjDB6qZA>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:54:45 -0000
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 07:01:29PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > > Ted, you are ascribing more concern about this by the providers than I'm > > seeing. > > Having talked to many of the same people at large mail providers that Dave > has, and also done some policy work for more than one of them* I have to > agree. Google has on the order of a billion mail users, and the other large > providers have hundreds of millions. The idea that they would weigh those > users against at most a few thousand people doing Linux or the IETF just > isn't plausible. And yet, vger.kernel.org is not rewriting its From field, and we have hard numbers that the number of developers for the Linux Kernel are not decreasing... Maybe it's because certain mail providers are not actually honoring the the DMARC spec by not rejecting mailing list mail from p=reject domains unconditionally, maybe it's because peoeple have switch mail domains in order to successfully participate at vger.kernel.org, or maybe it's a little of both. Or maybe it's because most companies aren't using DMARC, and any of the developers are either coming from company addresses, as opposed to using a lot of big consumer mail providers (which might very well be the case for the IETF as well). Speaking of company addresses, one interesting case study which shows the economic power of Linux was that it actually caused IBM to except Linux Technology Center members from having to Lotus Notes (which given the power of IBM Software Group at the time, was in my opinion a far bigger sign of power than IBM deciding to invest a billion dollars in Linux). If you wanted to interact with the rest of the Linux Community, you weren't going to be using Lotus Notes. And guess what; an alternative was provided. It had nothing to do with Linux being a cult. It had to do with a very simple business decision. I really do believe the IETF is underestimating how much power it has; even if it can't move the big consumer mail providers, developers who want to interact with the IETF will find a way.... and if not, maybe the IETF doesn't have the power to be an effective standards organization any more. (Which certainly seems to be true in the e-mail space, anyway....) - Ted
- DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC rel… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Yoav Nir
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Paul Wouters
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Paul Wouters
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Randy Bush
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Yoav Nir
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Randy Bush
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Ted Lemon
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Ted Lemon
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC John C Klensin
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC John Levine
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John Levine
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC John R Levine
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC John R Levine
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John C Klensin
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Andrew G. Malis
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John Levine
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Dave Crocker
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC John R Levine
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… John R Levine
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Yoav Nir
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC methods in mailman Hector Santos
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Dave Cridland
- Re: Realistic responses to DMARC Ted Lemon