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

Doug Barton <> Fri, 18 April 2014 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858C51A01B5 for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.874
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QuikLTBzmwnr for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253391A014D for <>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D88C922B1A; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; t=1397860510; bh=+WRsr1thi5Tyimv74G0XvN1VN9CaTu7wqu94MNyKW4k=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=qHezMtNcbpKVWaPC733IiR8cXgywIrp7ycyMUIDGlXq0f4bI8j3OfwAEPdN0JSP6m Ql/4SGVKF2lUX1gQgO6LeBtgxubJHcCj/dHbbirZuGZ02JBKcCemXK1cqfJdLel+gC 9t8+wEm95s/5ae1L5LxbtzE0rZnHonC8oL4K8VjU=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:35:09 -0700
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 18 Apr 2014 22:35:18 -0000

On 04/18/2014 07:47 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
 >> I said:
>> Rather than throwing up our
>> hands and telling the DMARC folks that we refuse to work with them
>> unless their solution solves the problem of our anachronistic use case
>> that that constitutes only a tiny percentage of their overall traffic;
> Again with the traffic size as justification for poor behavior. Not all
> messages are created equal, and some functions have utility entirely
> disproportionate to the amount of bandwidth they use.

Right, so the input here from the operators is, "Mailing list traffic is 
not important enough to us to prevent us from deploying an anti-spam 
solution that solves the vast majority of our problems with little cost 
or difficulty. The MLM software authors will have to deal with this 
problem on their end." And your response is to stamp your feet and 
shout, "But my mailing list traffic IS important! It is, IT IS!!!!!"

I'm glad that you feel that way, we should all have things that we're 
proud of after all. But in terms of actually listening to and acting on 
the input we've received from the operator community about this topic, 
the IETF has failed. The fact that people like you don't recognize this 
as a failure is a clear sign that our slippery slope into irrlevance is 
well greased.