IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Suggestion: can we test DMARC deployment with a mailing list?

Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Fri, 02 May 2014 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.org>
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 486EF1A6FEC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 e60PJVwVIn1M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6561A09B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2014 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
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=vrl185tYbJgR2g5MB4CKBczpLGLovKdKce7ybyKUkDk=; b=lubsIe1IymLu9nVZBrSrgbwx8+158LX+Aau0njMcoky+0YmNbYMAwMnlqfJhM2oyljlVL/jmT8uPIq2Hku9Yv8/qQRqnIeC81QL8brlxXpdk3ZT+ioQw2yI7eh5UIOyN1xR3pE99b1qlmIpN+BlyOCDKNum4ADjBiNlmW+aVqmc=;
Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tytso@thunk.org>) id 1WgMzI-0003I0-Ih; Fri, 02 May 2014 23:35:28 +0000
Received: by closure.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id F0716580734; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:35:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 19:35:27 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: can we test DMARC deployment with a mailing list?
Message-ID: <20140502233527.GC24108@thunk.org>
References: <20140502211317.81216.qmail@joyce.lan> <E32E56A1-F404-489B-96F5-FCF335BFD57A@cisco.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405021731280.81340@joyce.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405021731280.81340@joyce.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nCpspaXpLSzdzww6oDSQ12gjkJ0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 02 May 2014 23:35:34 -0000

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:52:05PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> The problems are occuring at the end points, not at the IETF.  For example,
> aaron@aol.com posts to a list, where one of the subscribers is
> charlie@comcast.net.  The list adds a subject tag and footer, as our lists
> have done since forever, and remails it to Charlie.  Comcast's DMARC
> software observes that this message has an aol.com addresss in the From:
> line, but didn't come from an AOL IP host (SPF) or has it a valid aol.com
> DKIM signature, so Comcast bounces it.  This isn't hypothetical; I've seen
> exactly this in my logs.

If you think about the inventives of the entities in question, it's
really not that surprising.  Yahoo and AOL will want to force people
to use their web-based forums, so they have no incentive to make life
easier for mailing lists.  And Comcast has an opportunity to steal
mail users from Yahoo and AOL by telling the world the solution is to
use their comcast.net address, since they promise not to enable
p=reject (even as they enforce it with a vengeance):

	http://postmaster.comcast.net/dmarcupdate.html

						- Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email