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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 15:41 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 C93B21A03D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:19 -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 TJFGhNJYKFBg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFB71A03A1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q5so835162wiv.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:06 -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=5sFK6yw3OwqjITMtBPljd6QJwoL2lGqYE/XUsMJ8fD0=; b=LG9PKs/eTfMkMS2157YK1UMVGSv1J95erDWsbyIW6lb238j0MKKIOufQje9Wxr7yVs t6rhf4QTZcFlEQPu7FW8qLsaM+GcDB0QwC63EQVicaPKZ8i34sehApuHG0fs4WduuQbj Z7RKp03HbtsSLXY2Ix9qSbBUrD3yPfguMX5/+kwzt4tKycA6kczFwsMZUMtpA4rvDBkW VCyoB6jAa03mcFj41LZ3I2pnXPKlUq8M26Y6QLx89EGAK4LOJdcNgT3FEZyWAG/8+lJO TFzeFrCe8v+GB4/Quwpy78Qn/3ZJhzL6tLqYIsIUqQHkhfSpVhCTxQ4r/ogG5ALnSL6F 6hjg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.60.146 with SMTP id h18mr14622765wjr.26.1397835666580; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.211.40 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
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> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:41:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbeouNWWAyanTdUHACLUds=5ZQcG0TMCW-AmMNmuE6qrw@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: "ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com" <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86dc405c6c5004f752faea
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yvJocfGED4cT-2fRfvio8cO9Fgg
Cc: 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: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:41:20 -0000

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 7:47 AM, <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com> wrote:

>
>  The message was pretty clearly, "We think DMARC is valuable enough to us
>> that we plan to deploy it even though it has the unfortunate side effect
>> of causing problems for mailing lists."
>>
>
> Allow me to rephrase: "We think getting our commerical mail through is
> worth
> sacrificing all sorts of personal mail functionality users depend on. And
> we
> don't care who it hurts, including some shops as large or larger than we
> are."


I'm not so sure delivery is the primary goal.  Rather, "We're tired of the
fact that we are unable to control who generates mail that appear to come
from our domain(s), and it's hurting us" is how that should at least
start.  A tarnished domain name has repercussions beyond just delivery of
email.

-MSK