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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 21:21 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 2FED61A0730 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 n7KE_aLGOk6t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB091A0704 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hm4so5987621wib.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:06 -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=o0rZPPZ0vfeupx0n41YeJT9pq1zio2svGimwprtUG3U=; b=dt0yAtcp43hHQw4zFhBBT6G5vPV+dQPQFertLyQBnBlJq/wNesvvmeCUPy5AfJlUCB djjVN0mrntdWOKvfWPvsdOC3Xo7/+N+ndFhARZkBAmy479KYeemp8ZqlqLLWYbZYCuyD 2q95ZUVVnKZDU8sgITfWcOxyfza49m7/u598hpE2TIxLEqB6NTWMdlSCw8/+g+ZmKDxA 6ERLYPugLwvaBDsG5UxkXy9ULW7P5vpo+/7PhQXOR8a+ltMhRGFmMsPXBvbnWeXNHaZ0 2UZ2xqlTCZaVtFTaa6T4cKxSPPlnmtWOeH45QPsCvi+EpoKVk1sPBFu42XGNdvIjYPPt NAKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.116 with SMTP id nb20mr11203576wic.5.1397510466312; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.140 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534C4AF8.60709@sonnection.nl>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <534C4AF8.60709@sonnection.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:21:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZSAarop5A8NA2ZTNXeBxxk2Yw8vw5CRV0P4pwrH2Bp4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "<R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl>" <R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c26ab4ea240904f7074268
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u2hXz-6XFqQBtRBStQIpnHMX7HM
Cc: "ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com" <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>, ietf <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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:21:11 -0000

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <
R.E.Sonneveld@sonnection.nl> wrote:

>
> This might have been true if:
>
> 1. Yahoo _did_ solve the abuse problem and
>

We'll have to wait for them to tell us whether it did.  Anything we
conclude is our perspective, not theirs.


> 2. the decision making process within a closed industry consortium with
> maybe less than 20 members, representing immense commercial power, could be
> compared to the process of consensus, that's being used within IETF.
>

The consortium hasn't been closed for a long time.  A public mailing list
outside the IETF was announced and created, and then a second one
maintained at the IETF, both of which have been places from which
suggestions from the general community have been discussed, accepted, and
incorporated into revisions.  There was furthermore a BoF to create a
working group held a couple of IETF meetings ago.  It's not correct to
claim this has been closed the entire time any more than DKIM was.

-MSK