Re: [Tools-discuss] Can't send mail to Cenk (Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E303A0E95 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:52:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bangj.com
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 ML4P8EfF3UzJ for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (69-77-154-174.static.skybest.com [69.77.154.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42AD13A0E39 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:52:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.10.196] (mta-107-13-246-59.nc.rr.com [107.13.246.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1F142BF78; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:52:06 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bangj.com; s=201907; t=1607716327; bh=HJHLshzyUNsvQNVEuCtdRxPDvBGeR/KmNKMH/gdKDI8=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=BOKZOJBytaAaxuJeLrnjDIJzP2Dl6N+O4chojjYIMeeZ4JrofvZIJla4zjlBegate WKWAFnn9XccBkRaQXeGZFUIEPcgdRWOGUFCPMUoJKzxVYMgeOSn0aE6zdHQ7etWeik p6a2KqDtC8eqjZM+DxeyU/VF5Cc7Gq3uNijlF6c40QkSWDjd7Ko5FpOFyyXcYSuxpn NThrj7glt/twc16QNjkJ8toNmLTpzMw5sug52QH3ARrE8qlwaNttcBjh0qrHq7iDnj lXO30j2rLpv/Qen2tTmo/hUHUD4lBPq/ujYWS0b1PRXEbZHy8njwSOEf7Ne5EwQ6WJ VSZJZe408WN7A==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <92A33A0F-7571-46AB-9CD4-BC193E545881@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:52:06 -0500
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, "tools-discuss@ietf.org" <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF60BD2F-8538-48BE-916A-8CE9A240FE7A@bangj.com>
References: <20201211183328.C2BDF2979A3F@ary.qy> <461.1607713827@localhost> <50c0527d-4676-d485-382e-c967035798ea@levkowetz.com> <a8f64c28-3ef2-71da-ee4d-3ef87adb17c@taugh.com> <92A33A0F-7571-46AB-9CD4-BC193E545881@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/kLlFTE1KKn3FO6ugizcUEqgmSxY>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Can't send mail to Cenk (Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 19:52:21 -0000

> On Dec 11, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>>   In my experience only a small fraction of mail systems pay attention to 
>    SPF -all because the false positive rate is stupendous.  The current 
>    behavior is fine.
> 
> Reality is always more important than philosophical stands;  King Canute would approve :)
> 
> Yes, my employer is one of the folks in the dmarc hack. But so are other small players like Google. :)

From someone who runs my own mail server, it bugs me that my address gets rewritten.

I’m thinking that I’m adhering to all of the best practices for mail servers (I do have a problem with my upstream provider not cooperating). But, I’m obviously not jumping through all of the hoops that the IETF wants me to jump through to keep my address from being rewritten.

So I’m annoyed because I don’t know what the criteria are.

But then I see Akamai addresses are getting rewritten too and I think if they’re not jumping through all the hoops, maybe there’s just too many hoops.

Tom