RE: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Mon, 23 May 2016 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 6C79B12D5C6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 19:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 VDCPN80L9Zx9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 19:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BE8E12D5C2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 May 2016 19:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q0HL71663K000X18@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 22 May 2016 19:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q07QGYT29C00005M@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 22 May 2016 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q0HL6ZY0A200005M@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-15.txt> (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 22 May 2016 08:56:24 -1000" <015501d1b45b$a7979d90$f6c6d8b0$@huitema.net>
References: <3211644D-09A8-4969-B830-A62F9EBC593B@fastmail.fm> <20160522142013.48173.qmail@ary.lan> <015501d1b45b$a7979d90$f6c6d8b0$@huitema.net>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tTXUoeLbnNM3pBfFuObaIm1f_zk>
Cc: 'John Levine' <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 02:06:49 -0000

> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:20 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > Brian sent me a message/rfc822 wrapped version of his message, so I
> > stuffed it into my Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail mailboxs after looking at
> > it in Apple mail and Thuderbird and of course Alpine.  Gmail flattens
> > it to look like a text forward, Yahoo loses the headers on the
> > wrappped message, Hotmail and Apple mail show it as an attachment you
> > can download, Thunderbird and Alpine show all the relevant bits, but
> > not in a particularly attractive way.

> Let me give a "half full" view of this "half empty" glass. This experiment
> shows that not all UA to the right thing, but some actually do.

Take a closer look at the list. The two UAs that John said "do the right
thing" (and I would dispute that claim in the case of Thunderbird) are
both open source. The three that don't are the three of the larget, if not
the largest, service providers. 

This also ignores the entirely one-sided history in this area. Message formats
that provide the ability to represent a forwarded message in its entirty go
back to at least ~1980 (NBS format followed by X.400), long before MIME.
And in the past 35 years there have been many attempts to use 
message encapsulation for various purposes - the obvious ones is delivery
status notifications and message disposition notifications, which are
in fact currently used at scale.

And yet client ability to display such things in any sort of sensible way
just hasn't happened.

Given the importance of knowing why a message didn't get delivered
you'd think clients would support this better. But they don't.

So you'll have to forgive me for thinking your "half full" view here
is hopelessly optimistic.

				Ned