IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Realistic responses to DMARC

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 21 December 2016 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 65E1D129722 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:23:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.092, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 YpGa8mgOSLzn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:23:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6B41296D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:23:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1482337432; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=q7yf7txNeH3IOatpnnLZx6MmB2ZScrpM/UvYrDvs/1U=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=T/sBNH/NiRmY+cdCT3lEVQFeCajq3n8SGEqjoWaWsJaztmTyCbTFzgf9Uei09QcJ28VI2h vwSDo55ZQaNAl4ASJZm+LfId2ArtoLx+SqBncoquw2ZO5koXirMzbINucMrTnIhMWRrMbK K0UMvNuiofuAecGoD7ds9q+mk2BEJiM=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <WFqslwAY12-T@statler.isode.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:23:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Realistic responses to DMARC
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <9AD6AAD6812D3B9F8379226B@PSB> <20161218022823.8779.qmail@ary.lan> <20161218055834.he6gkupqp5xqlvml@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180101460.14297@ary.qy> <20161218065905.5g66jgkvtckydmry@thunk.org> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612180215450.14970@ary.qy> <20161218222427.7phtcg7mhpypcwnb@thunk.org> <499b8679-37bc-36eb-3ac8-9d99570f42df@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612181857510.19758@ary.qy> <20161219005411.w5tmps5i46lnkydy@thunk.org> <13804.1482113481@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <e9e9efd0-0d83-63f3-4deb-8e0633cc0d17@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:23:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
In-Reply-To: <13804.1482113481@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1A130BC601F4BA4578D51E6D"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/poFysI3WOhEoH0cSshcc5KRFZP0>
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, 21 Dec 2016 16:23:54 -0000

Hi Michael,


On 19/12/2016 02:11, Michael Richardson wrote:
> BUT, if their email bouncing kicks me off the list, then I will be very
> grumpy.  My spam filtering provider provides me controls to ignore p=reject
> when arriving from certain origins, but this doesn't scale well.  I'd rather
> the IETF implemented DMARC properly and rejected the email from arriving at
> the list.  Or the IETF can repudiate DMARC completely.  To me, it's the
> IESG's choice, but this sitting on the fence for four years pissed me off.



On a more serious note: IESG is discussing various options as we speak. 
I am the lead on this activity. I would ask people to give IESG a bit of 
time to finish these discussion and don't rehash the DMARC discussion 
all over again.

Best Regards,
Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email