Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 810721A072B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 2Bn7HHsBVQi4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B741A06E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so8558815wes.41 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XT823+v4J4VRWUiLDgeudf51jsL+vS+Z+9Z7O//ed64=; b=m/5FRnEf9wTeCAbNWAo9+Y5bp+sj2+6GCS6hNk7Xac6VNlnz9kY8kP417mLIEB/DOh UNegJ0QUZKPYOP9FywLnUG1HBhRu47NiWz2qrWM3JBPcG9htHTRaYoWYFZy8aqabdVRo WBwKE3aTvLDZv7CoCG3GfJ2e6zkiyJTDPNiA11bHMaXM4P0daWqdWl55NCOasKoKHbu4 JFiRLKVS9efZQvDD1uYdqguxDEpgUdCZFNuxNG/Lbcy4mEZqgsoAh0T5y4kLWNiqKIlO PN3Z/05EUnoJELZYnh6T5jwToz+vx50xUQGCNeEEaSuh5ojerG0TepzFda3alIhMXuQc aVUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.89.168 with SMTP id bp8mr311090wjb.73.1397510830161; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.140 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzz8Uuq_8ErsbdTA04uTihqNHAU2E_c+dUyNrVi2r3mtJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140414024956.26078.qmail@joyce.lan> <534B524F.4050206@dcrocker.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132327560.26258@joyce.lan> <E0B7196CB2603B80BBEC21AF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404132346420.26386@joyce.lan> <1EBDF5239EEE5202D3837D25@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534B9760.90301@dougbarton.us> <534BFA0D.7000404@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwZdOORfasExjyc9BHDMYwR_gUk7NRiE7KFBWUC2Hae9jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzz8Uuq_8ErsbdTA04uTihqNHAU2E_c+dUyNrVi2r3mtJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:27:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ1P8r0CF+8LL3ewEcA7Rmn1W9u2FZUsuBykAcQzOy7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a1c9a09b704f70758b2
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pSJU0r7vtFAz6KwDs3fsNJWD078
Cc: ietf <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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:27:18 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> The DMARC folk came to the IETF to have a rubber stamp put on their work,
> and pretty explicitly stated that no substantive changes were acceptable,
> and that change control would de-facto remains with the DMARC consortium.
>
> So nobody who wasn't already "in the club" was really invited.
>

I understand that's how the move was interpreted.  We spent a lot of time
arguing about how to word the charter so that changes were restricted only
to what was necessary versus wholesale changes that caused serious and
unjustified disruption to the installed base, etc. etc.  A lot of work has
been derailed by cracking base specs wide open in the past (think 2821 and
2822, for example).  It was the same argument under which DKIM and XMPP
were brought to the IETF, but in the case of DMARC case the two sides
couldn't agree on exactly how to do it.

One of the very specific items that was on the proposed charter was dealing
with the question of how to integrate DMARC with mailing lists.  This was
called out very early on as an open issue, as were some other important
ones:

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/DMARC

-MSK