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

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 25 April 2014 03:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3A71A0439 for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JOK6PLFsQ51Z for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933BF1A02F9 for <>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3P3Q02Z022953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:03 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:23:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:, Doug Barton <>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
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, 25 Apr 2014 03:26:12 -0000

On 4/24/2014 7:45 PM, wrote:
>> It's incredibly obvious that the IETF either didn't listen to, or
>> didn't act on clear messages from the operator community on this
>> topic.
> Well, here I sort of agree. What the IETF didn't do is react to the
> danger this posed in a timely way. Either on a technical or political
> level.

The fundamental flaw in this sort of view is that the IETF initiates 
organization efforts. Or that it acts on "messages".  It doesn't.  It 
provides an environment for workers from the community to organize open 
standards efforts.

In other words, the failure is of the industry to formulate an effort 
and bring it to the IETF.  Other than SPF, DKIM and DMARC, of course, 
which have variously been brought to the IETF.  (I'm not trying to 
re-open a debate on the details of those three, but merely to note that 
they are examples.)

Were there examples of efforts to bring work to the IETF and have it be 
rejected, that might be the IETF's 'fault'.  DMARC is the closest 
example to that and, as has been thoroughly hashed and re-hashed, it did 
not match the usual IETF model for doing work.

So sorry, but no, there have been essentially no 'clear messages from 
the operator community' and more importantly, no /efforts/ other than 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking