Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, was perspectives
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 04:58 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 C768D1A072D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 h550lCJxxt3e for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E281A0743 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w62so9052569wes.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:49 -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=PEk0UkJWzP09KEYwjXL99I6WiohX9u9FgFV4s3P1FdA=; b=ZsNzlWmpT93Mdg2s+kv8QRk/nAcN8H/v4HDlYDcyO6SbI1+6OoKJ6ihoydeT38OHjD r7Hq3Zgl7FanQ0EK/b5LPSfWzbY64GbwJJff9Qp3zOh1SllkZKZuIQvG+zWFnK4+NQVC kskesrrRaNkQCjoUgKF/M+15qJi8Rd9C5NAWEvXdzSPZRTaD4pUxBY+Uf4puriQHWbU9 8logF55FaudSCIn0KG8nrJqMWKaBdpW4/TpyhLIKcC+qsEIzsnCe4sg3JkJrregzirp9 U4kqdUEkVf3kkykkkCppqbfaWh8sOSP4JzoE8+QmHWc+A09JCHyAxf3mOyrrx9r+mXHO oJKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.116 with SMTP id nb20mr624891wic.5.1397537929051; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.140 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404142150430.32657@joyce.lan>
References: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D45766@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <20140414214949.32126.qmail@joyce.lan> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0507D460CB@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404142150430.32657@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbPMm_i0fqNSGQPv=xZaiNASy=icsRNudaNJ_3PNtX3Og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, was perspectives
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c26ab4d2447604f70da7d7"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sv_zH0OPXo39wAtyS3KMppsCtVQ
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:58:58 -0000
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:59 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > I've never said that lists won't change, I've said that we're not going to > screw them up to work around your FUSSP. > It would be great if it were more of a dialog rather than a repeated exercise in intransigence. I guess when you're a list, everything looks like a FUSSP. Having been involved in things like SPF, DKIM, ADSP, etc. over the years, I can say that mailing lists always recur as a major obstacle. "Lists have been doing what they're doing for N years and they work fine. You don't get to mess with them." That's the mantra. In DKIM, we even did a whole separate RFC to talk about all the fun ways lists are a special case. The specifications of 30 years ago included some neat capabilities for communication, some of which mailing list servers employ to do what they do. I mean, I get that being able to put whatever you want in the From: field is a feature. Honest, I do. But meanwhile, increasingly, bad people use the very same capabilities to do their hugely expensive harm. Is it really the case that the benefit mailing lists (as they are today anyway) bring to the Internet outweighs the harm of leaving these capabilities wide open? There are probably earlier examples, but remember the finger protocol? In 80s and 90s, it was on, and it was harmless, maybe even useful. Then it started to get abused and exploited, so we collectively turned it off because the damage outweighed the benefit. That practice has been applied countless times since, to any service that gets rolled out in any context you can imagine that then gets discovered and exploited by bad actors: We fix the vulnerability, or we kill the service. We don't believe in "substantial non-infringing use" as a reason to keep something bad online. I can't think of an instance where that's not the case except email abuse, because we protect mailing lists, which have enjoyed apparent immunity despite ever-increasing pain to the victims of that abuse with no solution in sight. So why do lists get the privilege of being immutable? Can't there be some quid pro quo? Do the people with the problem also have to come up with the solution, preferably maintaining the status quo for lists, or could it maybe be more of a cooperative brainstorming thing? Is it really totally inconceivable and unacceptable that there has to be some evolution here? And before anyone tries to claim it, I'm not saying lists are second class actors, nor am I making any kind of claim about traffic percentage. I would just like to understand when and why they were granted this protected status in standards work that they appear to enjoy. -MSK
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large ope… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Robin H. Johnson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alex Ojeda
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… l.wood
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a listad… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John Levine
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John Levine
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Douglas Otis
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Doug Barton
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: protecting the Internet from DMARC damage, wa… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Cridland
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… ned+ietf
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… John R Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Dave Crocker
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: Mailman 2.1.16 [DMARC: perspectives from a li… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Scott Kitterman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Theodore Ts'o
- Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a lista… S Moonesamy
- (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of special John R Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John R. Levine
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Pete Resnick
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… John Levine
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… S Moonesamy
- Re: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: Let's talk (was: DMARC: perspectives from a l… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… tytso
- Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Mark Andrews
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Dave Cridland
- RE: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Pete Resnick
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… ned+ietf
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Martin Rex
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… Michael Richardson
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) Why mailing lists are only sort of sp… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… Yoav Nir
- Re: (DMARC) How a whitelist would work, was Why m… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Douglas Otis
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John R Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… tytso
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Theodore Ts'o
- [off-off-track] Re: (DMARC) We've been here befor… Miles Fidelman
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… John Levine
- Re: (DMARC) We've been here before, was Why maili… Alessandro Vesely