Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listsebby@me.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <listsebby@me.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E6E1A0301 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 MItbwWUJg58T for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from st11p02mm-asmtp002.mac.com (st11p02mm-asmtpout002.mac.com [17.172.220.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727571A024D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (natbox.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com [213.123.192.30]) by st11p02mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit (built Aug 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0N4200G061XWFT40@st11p02mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:32:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listsebby@me.com>
In-reply-to: <5593510.KZqL8eSkZ2@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:32:19 +0100
Message-id: <B078C9C1-1148-412B-9752-4B7A437A9780@me.com>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <534C4AF8.60709@sonnection.nl> <534C4FB1.9060508@bbiw.net> <5593510.KZqL8eSkZ2@scott-latitude-e6320>
To: "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-MANTSH: 1TEIXWV4bG1oaGkdHB0lGUkdDRl5PWBoaEhEKTEMXGx0EGx0YBBIZBBsSEBseGh8 aEQpYTRdLEQptfhcaEQpMWRcbGhsbEQpZSRcRClleF2hjeREKQ04XSxsZGmJCH2lmGVtNGXhzB xlsGh4ZGGcZEQpYXBcZBBoEHQdNSx0SSEkcTAUbHQQbHRgEEhkEGxIQGx4aHxsRCl5ZF2FNRlh SEQpMRhdsa2sRCkNaFxgbGQQbGBkEGxMYBBkaEQpEXhcYEQpCRRdmUH1dH21kGgVIYxEKQk4Xb HBgeUAdYlJpGmIRCkJMF2dJH215aRh+ckJNEQpCbBdlaGUYbU0cGENGThEKQkAXbmkdZVkTHH1 yR0MRCkJYF2lsWR0Ta20dfXpQEQpwZxdlfVxiYU9lbRNSTBEKcGgXbUNGBWBCThNvUFsRCnBoF 2dAcHhdThMcEn97EQpwaBdrcE0cBU5HEhJYHxEKcGgXYHJJQ0ZAY2llHB0RCnBoF2Jmek5JbFM SfnpMEQpwfxdvG0FoemNmHkhmExEKcF8XZHAeGVh9UGxwYVkRCnBsF2tmTmtBZV9mU2cBEQpwT BdjTkxufU4cc2RpWxE=
X-CLX-Spam: false
X-CLX-Score: 1011
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.96, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-04-14_01:2014-04-14, 2014-04-14, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1404150072
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mGrwLb-CyBXhtWuLAsUx_pIGL1A
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:32:58 -0000

On 15 Apr 2014, at 04:56, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 14:14:25 Dave Crocker wrote:
>> If the community wanted changes to the specification, it had quite a bit
>> of opportunity to call for the changes and/or call for  doing such work
>> in the IETF.
> 
> Not really.  As long as change control is outside the IETF and it's normal 
> processes, outsiders to the core group can call for change and that change can 
> be accepted or ignored be the insiders in the group with none of the normal 
> IETF processes that resolve issues and lead to rough consensus.

Yes.

Basically DMARC was always an outsider effort.  The effect of a bunch of very important ESPs (and a bunch of security types) crying "Look!  We've solved the email forgery problem!" was to inspire me to look at the spec, shrug it off as yet another FUSSP *, and move on.  Does this mean that I have materially failed to contribute?  Well maybe, but it means a lot for the spec to be in the IETF where I can point out how broken it is. :)

And, to be clear: I respect the goals of the proposal, and will be reasonable in accommodating it.  But to suggest that the contortions of the proponents in keeping it from the watchful eye of the IETF weren't in some small way intended to advance DMARC by force in numbers rather than consensus strains credulity, just a tad.

Cheers,
Sabahattin

* https://twitter.com/sgucukoglu/status/174104462758133760