IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 06 November 2016 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DA112945F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:19:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 JkoajNlCxNZ0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D0D2129408 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E47205A0; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:35:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33905637A8; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:19:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
In-Reply-To: <022001d23789$03154ae0$093fe0a0$@huitema.net>
References: <678C2FBA-A661-4556-A300-5C08562B5F8A@iii.ca> <29429.1478113235@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CABa8R6vHdt75NFKW3s6xOzLcq=jmVAHDPX0tjLRdGpYSTP2cYA@mail.gmail.com> <7301.1478274182@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <022001d23789$03154ae0$093fe0a0$@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:19:26 -0500
Message-ID: <12932.1478470766@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yz0VE9Ffn_X1czyv6E6YWTelgdM>
Cc: 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 22:19:29 -0000

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
    > On Friday, November 4, 2016 8:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: =20
    >> There is another option: the people who live in a p=3Dreject policy =
    > regime
    >> could use a different email address for IETF participation.  It's not
    >> =
    > a
    >> choice I like very much though.

    > Been there, done that. It has quite a few nasty side effects. You
    > easily = end up also sending work related e-mail from a non-corporate
    > account, = for example when you forward an email from a WG list to a
    > colleague at = work. That's against many companies' internal

Yes, and yet, the legal council doesn't get involved in the p=reject
policy decision?  The point here is to make the legal people wake up to
what is going on.

Creating corp.example.com or eng.example.com with a p=quarantine or other
policy is not such huge decision for a place considering p=reject.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email