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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 14 April 2014 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 8531A1A075F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, 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 E5zzEmCD8rxn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45E21A0755 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70C4CC0C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MlkpW1v-nM8I for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA239CC0BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <534C565B.9090501@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:42:51 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com> <534C4912.9010705@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <534C4912.9010705@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/x0p8C7J542-OYgdcugMd0xvqC0Y
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 21:43:04 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 15/04/2014 08:24, Dick Franks wrote:
>> On 14 April 2014 19:03, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miles Fidelman <
>>> mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible expression of
>>>>> IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from
>>>>> IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the
>>>>> unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot;
>>>>> not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.
>>>>>
>>>>>   The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of
>>>> DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
>>>>
>>> What real-world effect is this supposed to have, apart from setting a very
>>> dangerous precedent?
>>>
>>>
>> 1)  Invalidates the inappropriate document citations on DMARC site.
>>
>> 2)  Publicly refutes any claim that this is an IETF standardisation effort.
>>
>>
>> Robust action in defence of IETF reputation is possibly a precedent worth
>> setting.
> Not at the price of looking like censorship and distorting the
> historical record.
>
> We have very carefully designed boilerplate, and the point of
> boilerplate is precisely that it's there even if people don't
> read it. We're an open voluntary standards organisation;
> we're still not the Internet Police.
>
> I'm strongly against removing drafts from the public record unless
> they are obscene or libellous.
>
>
Big red disclaimer at the top then:
- THIS IS A DRAFT DISCUSSION MEMO
- THIS IS NOT A STANDARDS-TRACK SPECIFICATION
- THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT SUBMISSION, NOT AN IETF DOCUMENT
- SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF PROTOCOL 
SOFTWARE




-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra