Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Tue, 15 April 2014 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 BFC491A0311 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 c2_T6ao1_Qyj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC411A0301 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE82CC0C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ieB0VLQRqk6r for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Miles-Fidelmans-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AF98CC0BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <534CA3CB.7090205@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:13:15 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com> <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com> <534CA1AF.2040603@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <534CA1AF.2040603@dougbarton.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oSyKcC5eeXznbqkNWDxh8Hud4kg
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 03:13:28 -0000

Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 06:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
>> was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
>> some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
>>
>> Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
>
> Simple ... from Yahoo!'s perspective the breakage is negligible, not 
> serious. Traditional e-mail traffic to and from traditional e-mail 
> lists (like this one) is simply not large enough to lose sleep over. 
> Keep in mind, Yahoo! knew what breakage was going to occur before they 
> threw the switch, and they threw the switch anyway.
>
> Again, I realize that it's hard for most IETF'ers to conceive of, but 
> in this matter we are the ultimate anachronists.
>
Only by abdication.  That's reversible.



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra