Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 04 November 2016 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 085C7129503 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 jUWZdYEImfBW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (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 313F61294DA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id n204so90898311qke.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/khdR88Rl2oFCcyVmUdWYL40tMYjmYKcpmmveOOZKWE=; b=CokGiYqIJ9UZ2A1KXRu06DlR1/qr64ydyj+w0uY6rwmFudiBi5Tm3zRGTO1wh4oAWJ JF4/ZA6ZuN3HEqCO1MmCQCKNZ578jHU+jmMTwF86oj7WvxhJ74LxkPHpko9aefRFrhFl 8MyjpzCzxOvdXOFcSa//4COvk7oU3qMnvVSjZzDbR9XIZKOQX5ZlziyF1mcMQzZDbP9g Jo1xHkXagALVSrdKMTOLqcs9hvvbWK39qpqr5u2UJpvxllKEUG6+u7Ufz0TY1cfwSr1U CSlVOymg5V71K2il2yMGu1+GXh2qgOx1ef/47L6QNhnpdnc9sV7Ls4iAfGQTQMSB9GkW 9BHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/khdR88Rl2oFCcyVmUdWYL40tMYjmYKcpmmveOOZKWE=; b=BCHTj7KqyndSh0+IzlmvRKO1FTHRqkVxXvTsT1COMhlfggS0kSAf//OP4pRLQO8KOW 3XTu9IIaBNZ6VD6y7vArjI0NhxBbfKxD84cmqeioVoeRV+us3x4B5Z0OyXXyCuGV74YO LR8bxWsCFbgp+O0AG8NyZAgdJa9iS9M+JbYeAufi5sk4UFLIXymgbKAsp3fC0wYLu7zf BT/MbK7NryjHwkTiJ3HOO1hJe64PGNXlG/d4aoickM/GI3BTQx4KN3IqD7a61HR/+kj8 DQSMCcMc+rdtU1VjEBVVMDMRmPaHeGO5omrMC0I4+waVMQhsplmF6epCIxFczo4kzGge eGVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcUZAa+4fGj3WSrLOsOff2lw9+lQXwaTwLNS8ipwYOlR4nBNzHcvCVrzU4JGziG1Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.183.197 with SMTP id h188mr15047296qkf.107.1478272909281; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.146] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b94sm7780674qkb.16.2016.11.04.08.21.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Nov 2016 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <2EB28059074B7148F8A1443E@JcK-HP8200>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:21:46 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <958ED4C5-370B-4D64-8844-5E3D1699718B@fugue.com>
References: <678C2FBA-A661-4556-A300-5C08562B5F8A@iii.ca> <29429.1478113235@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CABa8R6vHdt75NFKW3s6xOzLcq=jmVAHDPX0tjLRdGpYSTP2cYA@mail.gmail.com> <20161102232357.b55vx7est7vjrdfo@thunk.org> <CO2PR00MB01018CDB45F0CE17671AD67596A30@CO2PR00MB0101.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <20161103134909.lnndzi6feaqfskyj@thunk.org> <CO2PR00MB0101960D3E311D2E1D4E1C4296A30@CO2PR00MB0101.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CAA=duU2C8uyj7e7bET8+73QrsXLtO9-+eXdRBr8FiGsLCfU9dA@mail.gmail.c om> <FF25052A-842C-45A4-BEDB-DAD3C9233B36@wordtothewise.com> <CAA=duU1pbQ8ZWX_eLATJU+i7Nhz35JpFkEgvaXtzjnhu6Dq-9Q@mail.gmail.com> <2EB28059074B7148F8A1443E@JcK-HP8200>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t3eeCHZgYbNBF4GFE086vQFwJQI>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:21:53 -0000

Forgive me if this isn’t as respectful as it could be, but your rather long dissertation on the problem didn’t actually say what would go wrong if we did something about it.   Is there something missing from the summary I wrote and sent to the mailing list yesterday?

This is an operational issue, not a philosophical issue.   People are trying to get work done, and a problem created by people other than them is preventing them from getting work done.  Worse, it’s doing it in a way that is difficult for third parties to detect, and that has resulted in people unexpectedly and unknowingly not getting email they needed to get.

This is a _really serious problem_.   Arguing that we shouldn’t solve it because we have philosophical issues is silly.   It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have firewalls, which break IP in exactly the way you described, because they are bad on a philosophical level.   They _are_ bad on a philosophical level.   We, the IETF, are not going to stop people from installing them, because they are _good_ on an ops level.   The idea that we shouldn’t solve problems like this regarding email went out the window when Canter and Siegel came on the scene.

That’s just life.   So if you have a technical reason why fixing this problem is a bad idea, please share it.   And I am always interested in your philosophy.   But I do not think you have made a valid technical argument against the IESG addressing this operational problem.