Re: Mailing list membership.

Kazunori ANDO <ando@bbsec.co.jp> Wed, 01 March 2017 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ando@bbsec.co.jp>
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 7CBBA129642 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:53:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbsec.co.jp
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 EFfTmK1UZNAX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sproxy40.aams4.jp (sproxy40.aams4.jp [IPv6:2001:278:1047:410::241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7165E129634 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.enkai.tv (27.35.138.210.xn.2iij.net [210.138.35.27]) (authenticated bits=0) by sproxy40.aams4.jp (Sentrion-MTA-4.0.2/Switch-3.3.4) with ESMTP id v21IrV9Q009118 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 03:53:32 +0900
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbsec.co.jp; s=20150430; t=1488394412; bh=LzPjQvqCDxb75AtMbXyICkVa3Q1lzZPuxRma7SGTT/U=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=fM1AFPPcJxqqhkp1aF7h9+F500twrQWGxKsMsGQ0nOEdwtFVF3VtOUEPVlHHtj+MG bO2n5qiY5IXgvBGaxWWeVkymGQYpv1Hca5IGZ0LSXECE6DaTYwGKhrUuyZ59By/qbo LJ9gUaZTvkZsm3ULmqD9RFceP08/Tuftek7M+Z/o=
Subject: Re: Mailing list membership.
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20170226124145.0b7b38c0@elandnews.com> <20f0d769-1937-3256-e37b-9583399c11d3@riseup.net> <20170227011852.GA5403@mx4.yitter.info> <5850e685-2f97-2bdb-87e2-0c11830e1d1c@riseup.net> <HE1PR04MB14490315646CDD5CC7DC2DBCBD570@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <ae531393-b622-a8b3-2cdd-65a4e99c6e9f@riseup.net> <HE1PR04MB14490DE8834559F6D9D05F7EBD570@HE1PR04MB1449.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <60cc8784-2815-32df-0cae-7adfffd0b549@riseup.net> <20170228051843.wkh5skthuyrs5pwz@thunk.org> <bea06868-c7b9-29ec-4f63-1adcca3b9698@riseup.net> <20170301044937.v3vhw3eqgqkxpoup@thunk.org>
From: Kazunori ANDO <ando@bbsec.co.jp>
Message-ID: <0295195d-20a6-0099-eef5-115245293047@bbsec.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:53:31 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170301044937.v3vhw3eqgqkxpoup@thunk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AAMS-Virus-Status: clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lXG_WeSZfD37j6JI48Y-wMQudnk>
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 18:53:38 -0000

Hi, folks

I made note about these conflicts. FYI.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/%E5%AE%89%E8%97%A4-%E4%B8%80%E6%86%B2/memo-about-some-conflicts-between-mailing-lists-and-dmarc/1332635393468971
-- 
Kazunori ANDO / ando@bbsec.co.jp

On 2017/03/01 13:49, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:29:24PM -0300, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>
>> related to the problem, what Khaled explained, what is your proposal?
>>
>> What are your "compatible with internet mailing lists" mail systems?
>
> RFC 2821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, section 3.10.2
>
>    "To expand a list, the recipient mailer replaces the
>    pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope with all of the expanded
>    addresses.  The return address in the envelope is changed so that all
>    error messages generated by the final deliveries will be returned to
>    a list administrator, not to the message originator, who generally
>    has no control over the contents of the list and will typically find
>    error messages annoying."
>
> This is the SMTP Envelope From field.  The FROM field is not changed,
> but the SMTP return address is changed, so that bounces go to the
> mailing list administrator as opposed to the person who sends mail to
> the mailing list.
>
> Unfortunately, if you are using a system whose domain requests that
> all recipients enforce DMARC alignment, this specifically instructs
> recipients to bounce mail if the SMTP Envelope return address doesn't
> match the FROM field in the header.  This means that they won't see
> mailing list mail as defined by the IETF Standards Track RFC 2821,
> which specifically says that is acceptable (and in fact a good thing)
> to change the SMTP envelope return address so that bounces (caused by
> people changing where they work, etc.) go to an administrator who can
> deal with them.  But if the mailing list administrators gets too may
> bounces, and it's because the sending domain is requesting that mail
> be bounced, the only thing they can do is to unsubscribe the sender or
> the recipient.
>
> Hence mailing list systems that enforce DMARC, or request DMARC
> processing, are fundamentally incompatible with mailing lists as
> defined by section 3.10.2 of RFC 2821.
>
> If you want to participate in such mailing list, one of the best ways
> is to change to a mailing list system that doesn't do DMARC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> 						- Ted
>
>