Re: DMARC and ietf.org
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 24 February 2016 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@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 C11471B2F73 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 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, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 xZv--OTdEWRa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE4D31B2F3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x234.google.com with SMTP id ts10so19905364obc.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:08:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=AIaQ9sH/OE0xVjdNuknwgD5e6WmaJVcBd4+/MEIvw10=; b=ec9fcsWE0U8b4Wtlm1NhD3fZx/+zvw4AFk4J2Rt+QhgZB49y4ndswEKa3jWrD5UHtz ZN2y9Rv68c3hdPM8O9Xl8W2EBJG/P1AmsP4Vs/4u1+NmNbf1S0tD3AfqlfuD3xRWQwS9 J+1y+chOnuRj0byWSQEymWwtUkjt/MQ7EdRZAbD5ybBTSBPf5R2mr5AIOg2sOWBSN/HL lM8EvsT/iRQSJgdh/Vzi9LsdhC8T51dq/iANx2GMd1gvv1w7qjPG2660ITknraEeKO/2 kTsSZUcL1d6/r62gQgAoDw1puohKkDJEUkcAgZ1ejs8yhxbbMm/nPHG6P9DWb/qPRFwz llzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AIaQ9sH/OE0xVjdNuknwgD5e6WmaJVcBd4+/MEIvw10=; b=YDZLL8hC+yBrak0dSzJwNSOditr+W/pH2NE9InzEKVmxCnd7JEfgRVuUU3ZMFUpXPa huYFDQWfNDUbIVUpit5p+DA6xB1u8ee0sQYvg1ssYVKzpB0jev8ZwqAH+jq5DOjGsIro 8RNm7p27bnXUSvyEd3Zy0grDefF55R8fAkDhecrkeObOVBweT9guR/Sj46vWqLIQVYsP 7JBVytF2sHFaKXPFnG0J0rmppBw9PLPj1f8VyQbR9TzFAbBLDXFftKsrOZC7R1e8ufpU D6dhDeLajpfcKvBKNL9BTHLazmj6SYy7JqxrGk3ZZE2+U1Hfibiiu5mmMrwQyMvyO49T Ai0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ0CPBR37fK9wMXRr5M1HH/klgMSSGZSHiTfM96Eunozy/ya90PGVJZPiwqAMnmPt3ZZjcPGMaR/wUMjA==
X-Received: by 10.60.232.163 with SMTP id tp3mr33586331oec.42.1456326498932; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:08:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.196.104 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:07:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56CDC083.7020001@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAL0qLwYZPO9L9e7MHA6zP5vcTbQEJmwCSonLdMeQiOw4CUoiFw@mail.gmail.com> <20140718174827.652621ADAF@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <6.2.5.6.2.20140719235353.0c50d260@resistor.net> <25621.1405862805@sandelman.ca> <56CDC083.7020001@sandelman.ca>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:07:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0HLdE0WRcM3o9SXGuZ2T6E5mha+GjRkyGfPEe+VO=pdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1136a7b6a5684e052c856f91"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pusok-pQAu8CSxnNYjPugvMJXJA>
Cc: IETF Discussion <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: <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, 24 Feb 2016 15:08:21 -0000
Michael, I couldn’t agree more, and this has been discussed multiple times on this list. We’re still currently using Mailman 2.1.15, which goes back to 2012. The current 2.1.x release for Mailman is 2.1.20, which is nearly a year old. There’s also a 3.0.1 release from this past November. Either of those can handle DMARC rewriting so that mailing lists continue to work. I’m still not sure why we haven’t upgraded to at least 2.1.20. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > 20 months ago, I asked the following question, and I am still unclear if > we have some plan. > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88695.html > > Again, I'm not interested what the best way to boil the DMARC ocean is. > I'm interested in the IETF cup of tea, as an enterprise, not as the > responsible SDO. > When I asked before, I was told that there would be results "soon", and I > should wait. > > (I also would like to recommend that the 2016 nomcom be given @ > something.ietf.org IMAP mailboxes, because DMARC makes receiving feedback > very difficult.) > > So again, my questions were: > > On 20/07/14 09:26 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> Regardless of how/if/why/when we process DMARC as a specification, we >> need to >> decide how ietf.org MTA is going to deal with things. >> >> 1) someone has to fund changes to mailman, and perform testing, >> installation, >> and community education for the IETF mailing lists. That implies that >> we have to decide *for ourselves* where and how we will "break" the >> DMARC/DKIM connection, and if we will reject email from p=reject >> senders >> before we attempt to relay. >> > > I don't think we ever made a decision here. I'm pretty sure that we need > to make this decision regardless of what improvements are made to DMARC. > If someone marks their email as not for forwarding, perhaps we should > respect that. Some suggested that the lists refuse to have people on them > with p=reject policy. > > My spam processor has just started processing DMARC, which will kick me > off mailing lists unless I disable it. Fortunately, that is an option, but > I think I have to turn off SPF to get it. > > Has the tools cmte determined if mailman will be enhanced in the way that > we want? > > So, again, I'm not interested in what we might specify as an SDO. > I'm interested in what we are going to *do* as an entity. > > >
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Douglas Otis
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based… t.p.
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… ned+ietf
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- RE: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Christian Huitema
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… ned+ietf
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… John Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Douglas Otis
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… John Levine
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet)
- Re: really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… t.p.
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Randy Bush
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John R Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-bas… S Moonesamy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… S Moonesamy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Murray S. Kucherawy
- [***SPAM***] Re: Registration policies (was: WG R… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… ned+ietf
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Stuart Barkley
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Randy Bush
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Douglas Otis
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [***SPAM***] Re: Registration policies (was: … Barry Leiba
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Miles Fidelman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Eric Burger
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Pete Resnick
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] WG Review: Domain-based Message … Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Martin Rex
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- RE: DMARC and ietf.org MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- RE: DMARC and ietf.org MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Rich Kulawiec
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Andrew G. Malis
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Payne
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine