Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@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 BDE391A020C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 AfD-iSnqqHKR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E0E1A02D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rd3so2955919pab.37 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Lr0n+UsvNRlesrAfTv2BH0U6t4SR7wwdJGYiRE/BJGs=; b=AEKsy4xWqthsAufvxE1rAZ0VVKd1ZQVdeXmTn9qUEOS96LAlY25iCjFzEOoAsaVsnA tjAaiXYLAzggVcXgt0JRpcMB0PjOwws7DQGsHBj8+/DrRXhP+U2xGkLlf76nV/8rRqxt HLOGdhS+D0e563il1TKrpWjOVwL+2fRdiKFln7jCaTTDGYQoFLpiiOwJ4GCPm+KwauI7 EV2aViSIxj0Wy5oV18n9h4q2sFNjhacrlZ1AkTBZ2nKHbw9y8BziIMGXHWuPgWkhgHbd WvWWnlS1wad1MRqSlwzxuBkk91BEC0iaHoytg2y3C7nUaAGU2jqvLQUG3hZdzsvYHi6E C5pQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.160.34 with SMTP id xh2mr6364459pab.109.1398417189472; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.150] (c-24-4-159-60.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.4.159.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z3sm35012186pas.15.2014.04.25.02.13.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DC6E3687-2567-42D3-B6E3-B594132A3BCD@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:13:07 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B627E61C-D207-4932-A6A4-BB611505FC0B@gmail.com>
References: <20140425002622.E6DFA1ACE0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <7859156.ek3Qf5sxiO@scott-latitude-e6320> <57E35BDB-30DF-4829-A6CE-F1132E0C2EFC@gmail.com> <DC6E3687-2567-42D3-B6E3-B594132A3BCD@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rHmbC9bdQgnoK3y9fNWuT2589sg
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, 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, 25 Apr 2014 09:13:19 -0000

On Apr 24, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by not declaring ISPs common carriers.
> 
> Is this conversation really appropriate for the IETF mailing list?

Dear Ted,

Protocols related to pervasive monitoring, reduced security, or granting overwhelming control to a select few at an expense of many should be valid topics within the IETF.  These larger questions can and should provide some guidance in setting group priorities.

Regards,
Douglas Otis