Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/20 6:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/10/2020 6:32 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Semantic nit picking at best. Because semantics do not matter in a specification? It's ok, I guess but I wouldn't want to make a career of nit picking. It's a lot more useful to get intent across of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/2020 6:32 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Semantic nit picking at best. Because semantics do not matter in a specification? d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter American Red Cross dave.crock...@redcross.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/2020 6:21 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: but here's a version of it: Just a thought, but the topic of mailing lists is both on-topic and currently being discussed, in the emailcore working group. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/2020 6:25 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: I think this all should be driven by "what are you asking me to do?" The domain owner has no business asking the receiver to do anything.  The receiver has no relationship with the domain owner. However, the receiver might like to hear the domain

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/2020 6:01 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: I think that is much closer to the right semantic but highlights a problem that the mail coming from a particular domain probably doesn't rate a single broad-brush characterization of seriousness. I've assumed the none, quarantine, reject

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/20 6:01 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:03 PM Dave Crocker > wrote: On 12/10/2020 4:46 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: to quibble with the "*unauthorized use*"  situation. This situation devolves into use-as-imagined vs.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

Yes, they are. I've been editing a document that lays out some of the strong arguments in their favor. It's still a draft (and may always be because I keep revising it), but here's a version of it: -- Mailing lists, which were sometimes called "reflectors" in their early days,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

So where is the proper place to discuss an ongoing IETF experiment? Seems sort of like catch-22. Mike On 12/10/20 3:52 PM, Seth Blank wrote: Michael, Dave, this discussion is off topic. Please see the Chairs' note here:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:03 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/10/2020 4:46 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > to quibble with the "*unauthorized use*" situation. This situation > devolves into use-as-imagined vs. use-as-really-used when one considers > various intermediary scenarios. > > (to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

Doug, this thread is off topic. Please disengage. Seth, as Chair On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 17:58 Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > What you miss is that mailing lists are not the whole scope. All > forwarding creates trust problems and all modifications by

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

What you miss is that mailing lists are not the whole scope. All forwarding creates trust problems and all modifications by intermediaries will cause trust problems. Modification is done by many spam filters, and the prevalence of modification seems to be increasing. If any of that traffic

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/2020 4:46 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: to quibble with the "*unauthorized use*"  situation. This situation devolves into use-as-imagined vs. use-as-really-used when one considers various intermediary scenarios. (to respond to the content...) So, the driving issue is that it's

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On 12/10/2020 4:46 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: but I'd have to quibble with the "*unauthorized use*"  situation. please do quibble. or more. I intended the text to prime the pump, and don't have any expectation is is already perfect. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:09 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > It might be worth a bit of thinking about what, exactly, DMARC can > reasonably do and how it should be summarized, for popular consumption: > > *Alignment - *DMARC defines a basis for authenticating use of the domain > name in the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110

I'm wondering why we should wait for IETF110 rather than having an interim meeting sooner. Interim meetings are also likely to garner greater participation since they do not include participation fee. If there are topics worthy of F2F discussion, why wait? If there are not, then why charge people

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/2020 3:52 PM, Seth Blank wrote: Michael, Dave, this discussion is off topic. oops. ack. sorry. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter American Red Cross dave.crock...@redcross.org ___ dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/20 3:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/10/2020 3:34 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: I'm just making the observation "Basically just declare" is not a linguistic form for 'just making an observation'.  It's a proposal. A proposal that we face reality? I suppose in an odd sense of the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

Michael, Dave, this discussion is off topic. Please see the Chairs' note here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HhfoBzu_RlM4aiMbiLc4BaHjjmc/ There will be a time to discuss indirect mail flow (and if we even care about mailing lists) after the core bis tickets are addressed. Thank

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/2020 3:34 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: I'm just making the observation "Basically just declare" is not a linguistic form for 'just making an observation'.  It's a proposal. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter American Red Cross

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/20 3:25 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/10/2020 3:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: So no, I won't be doing any of those things because they are completely beside the point. Feel free trying your hand solving it. Yet you were the one making the proposal and making claims as foundational

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/20 3:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/10/2020 3:17 PM, John Levine wrote: People at very large mail systems tell me that while the amount of traffic from discussion lists is a tiny part of the overall mail flow, it is mail that their recipients really want and complain if they don't

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/2020 3:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: So no, I won't be doing any of those things because they are completely beside the point. Feel free trying your hand solving it. Yet you were the one making the proposal and making claims as foundational to it. d/ -- Dave Crocker

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/2020 3:17 PM, John Levine wrote: People at very large mail systems tell me that while the amount of traffic from discussion lists is a tiny part of the overall mail flow, it is mail that their recipients really want and complain if they don't get. The relates to my point about getting

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/10/20 2:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/9/2020 3:05 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: we know that amount of traffic going through mailing lists is tiny -- like a couple percent. Keeping in mind that mailing lists have been a legitimate Arpanet/Internet email activity since the start of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 12/9/2020 3:05 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> we know that amount of traffic going through mailing lists is tiny -- >> like a couple percent. People at very large mail systems tell me that while the amount of traffic from discussion lists is a tiny part of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] are mailing lists worth saving?

On 12/9/2020 3:05 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: we know that amount of traffic going through mailing lists is tiny -- like a couple percent. Keeping in mind that mailing lists have been a legitimate Arpanet/Internet email activity since the start of network email and that it is DMARC that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #61 - Define and add a simplified (redacted) failure report

On 12/9/20 10:28 PM, seth=40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org wrote: > As an individual, I feel extremely strongly that failure reports should go > away in their entirety. Although Jesse Thompson has outlined a use case that > really has no other good solution, and is equally true in other large >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #61 - Define and add a simplified (redacted) failure report

On 12/9/20 6:12 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > At best, we considered allowing RUF reports for cases where the dmarc domain > was the receiver, ie if someone had a message that failed dmarc while sending > to the same domain, then presumably the domain admin already has the power to > view the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #61 - Define and add a simplified (redacted) failure report

On Thu 10/Dec/2020 05:28:55 +0100 Seth Blank wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:19 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:29 PM Brandon Long wrote: In today's much more privacy conscious world, should we have RUF reports in DMARC at all? [...] Seems to me that's still a useful

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine

On Thu 10/Dec/2020 02:23:10 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: On 12/9/20 4:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote: When you switch to p=quarantine pct=0, no one should apply quarantine (so it's equivalent to p=none), but Groups will start rewriting, thereby removing all of those failures from your reports. 

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A-R results for DMARC

On Thu 10/Dec/2020 00:37:19 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:27 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 12/8/20 4:51 PM, Brandon Long wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:31 PM John R Levine wrote: On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: The original intent back in RFC 5451 was to