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

Hector Santos <> Fri, 25 April 2014 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1421A0191 for <>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j7qlmO2KleZo for <>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918611A048C for <>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=3678; t=1398428860; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:Subject:To: List-ID; bh=v+/2a0b2n5xP8vwgtkPNgAUplHY=; b=XT6lMZnmXYuk+N/GoPFi J65ePuJdnkgnX4sW4ApyRRGcOYQVFCe9mf8qWr3AHuNvGG6NSZ7PTT59P9oChQnM y9nOoRjPvRaBNnxbJrGY8EcZdx+1nu/KuXQO867nBC0qQ4jG3m9SxwQgFthy+fXa 9vefy6pZNRd/SzQ+YbFogaE=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:27:40 -0400
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; adsp=pass policy=all;
Received: from ( []) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1537426903.3014.2720; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:27:39 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=3678; t=1398428773; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:Subject:To:List-ID; bh=BBatvhs 5ec151egT11S3zLjreT1y7iB63wNkIGkfhyQ=; b=AKQj9bA3IlxeeNtt1qU3YC7 0Jg8iEuAEK92YizRmwLIiyJ6G/OuNIWU5toIYTAKJ8NU4GqsfYo9dfUh/gGb4neV CgIK0Dm2PyNknm9tHab7Ds6sl8f4WAIvOZs/6vnubBOYxl1vVTrq+WBHdCFjTKVz 1QM7Qfxy8IbY/XerAZUY=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:26:13 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1556949359.9.13572; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:26:12 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:27:39 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Comment: Missing recipient address appended by wcSMTP router.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:27:57 -0000

On 4/24/2014 11:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 7:45 PM, wrote:
>>> It's incredibly obvious that the IETF either didn't listen to, or
>>> didn't act on clear messages from the operator community on this
>>> topic.
>> Well, here I sort of agree. What the IETF didn't do is react to the
>> danger this posed in a timely way. Either on a technical or political
>> level.
> The fundamental flaw in this sort of view is that the IETF initiates
> organization efforts. Or that it acts on "messages".  It doesn't.  It
> provides an environment for workers from the community to organize
> open standards efforts.
> In other words, the failure is of the industry to formulate an effort
> and bring it to the IETF.  Other than SPF, DKIM and DMARC, of course,
> which have variously been brought to the IETF.  (I'm not trying to
> re-open a debate on the details of those three, but merely to note
> that they are examples.)
> ....
> So sorry, but no, there have been essentially no 'clear messages from
> the operator community' and more importantly, no /efforts/ other than

Dave, you were involved in all this.  You resisted POLICY and threw 
out ADSP, yet you supported DMARC without resolving any of the exact 
policy concerns involving middle ware.

Your approach was to just allow the problem to continue to exist as if 
it was only a small use case.  You blindly and also intentionally and 
neglectfully ignored everything that had to do with this issue.  You 
told others to also ignore these concerns. Yet, you are now promoting 
DMARC which has the same exact problem.  It doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm sorry to say. you can't push this issue on any one else but 
yourself.  You were the KEY COG in this entire DKIM+POLICY+TRUST 
effort.  But you  didn't CHAMPION POLICY, nor did the author of ADSP 
and it suffered the consequences.  You can't expect high quality in 
work when the author doesn't champion his own work.  When others cited 
interest to take it over, it was ignored as well.  We can blames the 
chairs and ADs of the DKIM-WG too for allowing this to happen.

All the concerns, desires, integration issues, are in the archives and 
also in I-Ds and also RFCs.  Instead, you had a policy of intentional 
ignorance, filtering mail you just didn't wish to read.  Not important 
in your book. You also used INFORMATIONAL non-wg fast tracked 
documents to change proposed standard track items and the course of 
their WG direction, in the case of ADSP - down the tubes.  You made it 
historic. Perhaps millions of combine IETF-MAN-YEARS wasted down the 
tubes, and for what?  To get DMARC which had the same 3rd party 
signature problem that you desperately need to get working in order 
for the DKIM+TRUST framework to work.  You don't need to explain 
yourself but please don't you dare put this on others in the 
community, including myself, who worked hard for the past 9+ years on 
all this and yes even implemented all these protocols with "running 
code" only for you to say, it doesn't matter, too small, lets get rid 
of it!!

Ok, put all that past stuff away. What are you going to do NOW!?  How 
are you going to help lead the way?  If not, you need to allow others 
begin to solve the problem without all this interfering philosophical 
b-llsh-t that has held back the IETF DKIM+POLICY efforts and hurt its 
reputation - big time.   You are a highly respected person, but you 
were completely wrong with how your were pushing DKIM.  You didn't 
help with its original policy framework and now DMARC has forced the 
issue.  What are you going to do now?