Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 28 December 2016 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 06D31129695 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=4/rsECCv; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=n8Pt0lka
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 Nky-1XJ4e3Hq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642891295D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBSBxbbr014375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:59:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1482926386; x=1483012786; bh=wh+q3/5yh12wWOzeCcT4+OAvhP4vgIX9c4MFsvj53QY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=4/rsECCvTWwUqleOwfyN+1dRdjb8bKljCOCXtDRg4GRcoXNE5d3iZGXzFoLlQNyoc lxuXB9vcu3n2uz2p6Cr61bbnV1PeZzXqCy+ZF/wD+7HIvqX4TAkeCaJZdOHIExM2ct Q5CNjE54Q79UmXcRzGbUmW8BtpHwlscS0hTLel7U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1482926386; x=1483012786; i=@elandsys.com; bh=wh+q3/5yh12wWOzeCcT4+OAvhP4vgIX9c4MFsvj53QY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=n8Pt0lkatwmg+zpUdbNQDzmLt6c3O9aUGYYKIQLIodykpHGSatMucm8NBVCLNJKOr Yvc6BI3/o3GuC10H9YlHo+iyOWP6Z+ZZSW7nczfDwT4IPyedd1Bje45HT1bl9qgmCc En71Xnah6TtAdzdTeccdM9vCrjQhxT46RqP9tBjk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161228014607.0c97e158@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:47:14 -0800
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman (off-topic)
In-Reply-To: <585C920D.40200@isdg.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20161222061125.0adacfa0@elandsys.com> <585C41A4.6030008@isdg.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20161222140544.0c9712b8@elandnews.com> <585C920D.40200@isdg.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/n7YIcQrpruxjHmYV1eiY2iVJWCU>
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, 28 Dec 2016 11:59:49 -0000

Hi Hector,
At 18:55 22-12-2016, Hector Santos wrote:
>Well, for a while now, there has a number of efforts to fast track 
>items using Informational Status submissions which has, no doubt, 
>been leveraged as a means to bypass critical IETF reviews.  DMARC is 
>most definitely one of them.  Lets not fool ourselves.

Did you mean "Independent Stream" instead of "Informational 
Status"?  If so,  RFC 4846 discusses about the latter.

>We might call it a "pseudo-standard" because of wide usage but in 
>reality it is still an informational status document.  That should 
>change so it can get the proper status and wider and more complete 
>engineering reviews, and frankly more serious considerations. Since 
>ADSP was abandoned, a large investment was lost. I have a problem of 
>fully committing to a Informational Status DMARC protocol that has 
>the same problems ADSP had.  Why should I further invest in it?

I doubt that I could provide an adequate answer to the question as 
our considerations are different.  From my end it is a matter of 
which technical specifications I have to comply with for email to be 
usable.  There is also a policy [1] about IPR which determines 
whether a technical specification is acceptable or not as a standard.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. This is not directly related to the IETF.