1. IETF has installed a very ugly workaround to the problem, rewriting the "from" header field. It's absolutely a workaround, and not a proper solution.
2. Without the workaround, the real pain is not that a message from Comcast posted to the list doesn't get to you (though that's true): the real pain is that if Valimail rejects (bounces) those messages, the Mailman software will eventually unsubscribe you -- YOU, not the Comcast user -- from the list for exceeding the bounce threshold. 3. Even with the workaround, I see, as a list owner, several unsubscribe notifications a week due to excessive bounces. The damage to mail list operations is real, and expecting every mailing list manager to install an ugly workaround is not the right answer. Telling those deploying DMARC what interoperability problems an inappropriate choice of p=reject causes, and telling them not to do that... is the right answer. And, as I said, when they decide that their needs are more important than those interoperability problems, they have that right, and at least they will now be making an informed decision. The standard needs to say this. Barry On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:41 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr= [email protected]> wrote: > Colleagues, > > Can someone please point me to a mailing list server or other indirect > mail flow that I might somehow engage with so that I can experience the > pain of not having a message reach its destination when sent with a policy > of p=reject? > > I post to various IETF mailing lists from my work address, and my > employer, like Mr. Brotman's, publishes a DMARC record with p=reject. > Thanks to the work of the folks who manage the IETF mailing list software, > my participation in these discussions is not hindered in any way; I can > post to lists, people can reply directly to me if they choose, and I can > reply to the list and/or to the author of any post without any extra work > on my part. > > This leaves me in a position where I do not appreciate how a DMARC policy > of p=reject can harm interoperability, or perhaps better stated, I do not > appreciate that it does harm interoperability. I understand that it can, > because SPF can fail when mail transits intermediaries and DKIM can fail if > the intermediary alters the content of the message. That said, I cannot > recall seeing a bounce attributable to a DMARC failure in the three years > that I've worked here (nor for the year or two prior when my previous > employer deployed p=reject) and so I want to be able to send a message that > would result in such a bounce. > > Can anyone help me? > > Thanks. > > -- > > *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem > *e:* [email protected] > *m:* 703.220.4153 > > This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or > proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) > authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized > recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or > distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited > and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to > this email and then delete it from your system. > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
