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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 25 April 2014 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 2366D1A0447 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 8iSC_woqSNc7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE491A0442 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC5BD0453C; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:44:40 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1398386680; bh=saOo2lmv+UoXmRkRYQpI6l2RYua+ftPG5WVWv/ynQUw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vxmvwNAtzHoy2FUeH+NLovZD5vdKsPTlzwSa8qTk68ublqTGAnJzYKIpI5d6dNFo0 Wb3Lgh5ZD2HS13VYsO+pqbMS4HBktthKC9uD11UbYZb2JQ9KgXJUNp8PIBelpnjNnZ NJvOSEflu2xaLtKsbpLYScd5FTToRQISJCo0dIW0=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (63-253-113-202.ip.mcleodusa.net [63.253.113.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7E30D04183; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:44:37 -0400
Message-ID: <7859156.ek3Qf5sxiO@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.0-24-generic; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20140425002622.E6DFA1ACE0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <20140425002622.E6DFA1ACE0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vpGrysc1AddFzhgyKw-BH6LUtvo
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:44:48 -0000

On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote:
...
> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication
> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a telecommunications
> provider by some _outside_ third party.  So in the US a p=reject DMARC
> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation.

No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense.  The 1st Amendment to the 
constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private action.  
See http://xkcd.com/1357/ .

Scott K