Re: Enough DMARC whinging

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 14:39 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0i1Ppc-nMeWL-ipms4E4b0wpsSRZdLG+2YhujPgH-ZPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU0i1Ppc-nMeWL-ipms4E4b0wpsSRZdLG+2YhujPgH-ZPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:39:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Enough DMARC whinging
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GaH28v3u443C4A9lieOMCwMwDfQ
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

If there is a problem, I am not seeing it on gmail.

I have checked my spam filters, no mail to any IETF list there. So
unless gmail is doing a hard reject on this, I am not seeing issues.

Of course the way to make mailing lists work with DMARC would be to
look at the headers and treat messages with mailing list headers
differently. Perhaps the issue isn't in DMARC but how the information
from DMARC is applied.

With all email filtering technologies, the results of any
authentication or policy check is merely advice, not a requirement.
The sender can't impose any requirements on the receiver. Folk who get
hot under the collar about mail filtering tech tend to do so because
they don't understand that.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Philip,
>
> Here are the effects that I see. I use this gmail account for my IETF
> mailing lists. I am now consistently seeing email sent from Yahoo users end
> up in my spam folder with the following embedded warning message:
>
> Be careful with this message. Our systems couldn't verify that this message
> was really sent by yahoo.com. You might want to avoid clicking links or
> replying with personal information.  Learn more
>
> The sender, of course, is completely unaware of what is happening on the
> receiver's end, so they have no reason to want to change from Yahoo to
> another domain for posting.
>
> So this is imposing pain on the receiver, since I now have to consistently
> check my spam folder for valid IETF email.
>
> I see that you also use gmail, so you should start checking your spam folder
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I am finding it rather hard to follow the DMARC discussion. Some folk
>> have managed to convince me that they are upset but working out why
>> would require rather a lot of spec crunching.
>>
>> My best theory so far is that DMARC is some sort of email policy
>> statement and that either (1) some companies are now publishing a
>> policy that states 'reject all mail that purports to come from this
>> address that does not have authentication Y' or (2) some companies are
>> now rejecting mail not in compliance with said policy or (3) both.
>>
>> There is a simple truth about DNS names: Whoever owns them makes the
>> rules for their use [1]. If you don't like the rules for google.com
>> then choose another domain to post from.
>>
>>
>> If people want email to work with mailing lists, then don't complain
>> about reasonable choices people want to make. Work out a way to fix
>> mailing lists so that they work properly.
>>
>> There is no reason we can't change the way From works. Or add new from
>> headers.
>>
>> Are we engineers or curators of the past?
>>
>>
>> [1] Thus be rather suspicious of folk who claim that we merely rent
>> the use on terms of their choosing.
>>
>> --
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Christian de Larrinaga
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Mitch Rodrigues
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging John C Klensin
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew G. Malis
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging John Levine
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Jim Fenton
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Hector Santos
Commenting on/ reviewing Independent Submissions … John C Klensin
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Mark Andrews
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Hector Santos
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Doug Barton
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Alessandro Vesely
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging t.p.
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Not Enough DMARC whinging John Levine
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Jim Fenton
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Miles Fidelman
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Andrew Sullivan
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Cridland
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Crocker
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Dave Cridland
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: Enough DMARC whinging Murray S. Kucherawy
Large market player S Moonesamy
Re: Large market player Abdussalam Baryun