Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 13, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 13 Jun 2014, at 7:55, Miles Fidelman wrote: > >> Just a quick reminder here: Postal mail is still going strong, after 100s >> of years. > > I don't know what it's like where you live, but here the only thing that is > keeping the post offi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 13 Jun 2014, at 7:55, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Just a quick reminder here: Postal mail is still going strong, after 100s of > years. I don't know what it's like where you live, but here the only thing that is keeping the post office afloat is being paid by advertisers to deliver unsolicit

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net>> wrote: Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > My point is that mail is an old protocol and people who expect that > it

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > >> Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: >> >> > My point is that mail is an old protocol and people who expect that >> > it can be kept going unaltered in its original form serving all the >> > purposes that it wa

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/12/2014 7:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Sure, but as soon as the spammers adapt and start spoofing lists, you need to check the list's signature anyway. And I don't think customers who sign up for a list will be happy with losing mail for a month. RECOMMENDATION: In principle, the L

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > My point is that mail is an old protocol and people who expect that > it can be kept going unaltered in its original form serving all the > purposes that it was never designed for but have emerged over time > are going to be upset

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Franck Martin writes: > > The problem there is that not all lists use the List-* fields. > > Well, if they don't use these headers, I don't think they would > make any other modification for any upcoming scheme. I don't think that's a good heuristic. Most of the schemes we're talking about

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Printed on recycled paper! > On Jun 12, 2014, at 21:54, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky >> wrote: >> >> >> On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, "Terry Zink" wrote: >> >> >> Franck Martin wrote: >> >> >> >> I found that to build the override list for m

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Matt Simerson writes: > >> I'm not sure we need to be considerate of such behavior. If it's >> malware, reject it outright. > > Can't do that. Many viruses attach themselves to legitimate messages. > If the author is the boss, rejectin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > My point is that mail is an old protocol and people who expect that > it can be kept going unaltered in its original form serving all the > purposes that it was never designed for but have emerged over time > are going to be upset no matter what. True, as far as

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Matt Simerson writes: > I'm not sure we need to be considerate of such behavior. If it's > malware, reject it outright. Can't do that. Many viruses attach themselves to legitimate messages. If the author is the boss, rejecting it would be, uh, bad. Steve _

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Terry Zink writes: > > Franck Martin wrote: > > > > I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could > > log DMARC rejected emails that contained a List-Id or List-Post > > header. Once reviewing the logs (once a week, or once a month), > > you can make an easy decision if y

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: > On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, "Terry Zink" wrote: > > -- there are also all the non-transparent forwarders (for instance, > enterprise systems which do malware filtering on mail). And those system are going to do malware filtering on the message

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky wrote: > > > On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, "Terry Zink" wrote: > > >> Franck Martin wrote: > >> > >> I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could log > >>DMARC rejected > >> emails that contained a List-Id or List-Post header. Once r

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/12/14, 9:36 AM, "Terry Zink" wrote: >> Franck Martin wrote: >> >> I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could log >>DMARC rejected >> emails that contained a List-Id or List-Post header. Once reviewing the >>logs >> (once a week, or once a month), you can make an e

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

> -Original Message- > From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Terry Zink > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:37 PM > To: Franck Martin; Matt Simerson > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC. > &g

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

> Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > > As Craster insists: My domain, my rules. True. But Craster gets killed by getting stabbed in the neck. -- Terry ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martin Rex > wrote: Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Hector Santos mailto:hsan...@isdg.net>> wrote: >> >> Let me ask, what if a fedex.com employee use this email domain for

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Hector Santos wrote: > >> > >> Let me ask, what if a fedex.com employee use this email domain for > >> subscribing to the IETF list? > > > > Any subsequent problems are irrelevant unless FedEx, the owner of > >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

> Franck Martin wrote: > > I found that to build the override list for mailing list, I could log DMARC > rejected > emails that contained a List-Id or List-Post header. Once reviewing the logs > (once a week, or once a month), you can make an easy decision if you want to > add the found IPs in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

- Original Message - > From: "Matt Simerson" > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:13:55 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC. > > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wro

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Matt Simerson writes: > That just seems to reinforce the point that the message alterations > are far more popular with list *operators* than they are with list > *users.* *shrug* List operators are my constituency. If you, as a list (site) operator, choose to do things differently, more powe

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/11/2014 12:55 AM, Dave Warren wrote: > I've been surprised how many otherwise-technically-competent people use > subject tags to filter mailing lists. I've been surprised at how many otherwise-technically-competent people believe that techniques that have been reliably useful for decades are

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Dave wrote: > > Everything gets much easier if we specify guidance for filtering > engines, before humans come into the picture. > +1 -- Hector Santos http ://www.santronics.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: >> >> Let me ask, what if a fedex.com employee use this email domain for >> subscribing to the IETF list? > > Any subsequent problems are irrelevant unless FedEx, the owner of > fedex.com considers them to be relevant. > > That is what folk com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Matt Simerson writes: > >> If message headers and footers are so popular, how do you explain >> the continued "please unsubscribe me posts" sent to practically >> every mailing list? > > Bell curve. Some people are 2-sigma self-center

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Rich Kulawiec writes: > But that's not really relevant here. The flooding propagation > model of Usenet is quite different from the model used by mailing > lists. I'm not sure if it's been made clear already or not, but the Gmane model (copied by the experimental Mailman add-on) is a NNTP net

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Matt Simerson writes: > If message headers and footers are so popular, how do you explain > the continued "please unsubscribe me posts" sent to practically > every mailing list? Bell curve. Some people are 2-sigma self-centered, and others are 2-sigma clueless. What else is new?[1] Note tha

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 6:55 PM, Dave Warren wrote: I've been surprised how many otherwise-technically-competent people use subject tags to filter mailing lists. However, I suspect much/most of this could go away if MUAs started displaying List-* information in a useful way, and made filtering on those hea

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 2014-06-10 13:32, Matt Simerson wrote: If message headers and footers are so popular, how do you explain the continued "please unsubscribe me posts" sent to practically every mailing list? Message trailers have insured that the answer is *right there* in every single message. Message traile

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 4:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Hector Santos writes: > Will you implement it? You need to implement it as part of the LSP > integration. What LSP integration? DMARC is an agreement between Author Domains and destination hosts. Mediators are not party to it. Once you g

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 10, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Hector Santos writes: > >> understand you are a LSP. DMARC effects you differently, but we can't >> throw out the proverbial baby. > > I don't care what *you* do with your proverbial baby. The point is > that *LSPs* are mostly not in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Hector Santos writes: > Will you implement it? You need to implement it as part of the LSP > integration. What LSP integration? DMARC is an agreement between Author Domains and destination hosts. Mediators are not party to it. It's arguable that the host MTA should be checking DMARC authen

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > > the story of my life... i'm always in minority, fighting for > survival. > > It is entirely possible to fight for the minority without acting this way. It's unfortunate that you feel like your lifetime of frustration has to be taken out o

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > u ppl keep repeating that. however, u never say what IS the reason. > why don't u enlighten us, then? > Instead of assuming the reason and thus making false accusations, you could've asked for the details first. > maybe we'll bitch less i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:42 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The reason DMARC is not (presently) in the IETF stream has > nothing to do with any of the above points. u ppl keep repeating that. however, u never say what IS the reason. why don't u enlighten us, then? maybe we'll bitch less

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > > That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality. > > The choice was among different varieties of pain, but > > no amount of preparation would have made the pain avoidable. > > that's a completely wrong assumption. they all knew DM

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 3:16 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: LSP are just feeling the pains of their early ignorance of the technology. That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality. The choice was among different varieties of pain, but

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: unfortunately, Phillip, there's no hope for us to agree on these things. everything u say seems so double-faced and cynical, it's beyond my best hope to comply. nothing personal ofc. simply cause i majored both philosophy and com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > wrote: > > >> There is a traffic jam in Cambridge/Boston >> several times a day as the lifting bridge opens to let some plutocrat >> sail his yacht through at rush hour. Several thous

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> LSP are just feeling the pains of their early ignorance of the >> technology. > That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality. > The choice was among different varieties of pain, but > no amount of preparation would hav

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Hector Santos writes: > LSP are just feeling the pains of their early ignorance of the > technology. That, sir, is false, both as to fact and as to causality. The LSPs were not "ignorant" of DMARC or its component technologies -- e.g., Mailman already had mitigations (courtesy of Franck Marti

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > > It is more easier, more feasible, more safe, to just reject/discard >>> the failed message (due to policy) at the backend and be done with it. >>> >> >> In your opinion. >> > > It is the expert opinion of million of IETF-MAN-HOURS and SM

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > There is a traffic jam in Cambridge/Boston > several times a day as the lifting bridge opens to let some plutocrat > sail his yacht through at rush hour. Several thousand people have to > wait half an hour to get to work for one p

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 9:55 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Hector Santos writes: > Are you oppose to any other domain using strong policies or just > certain ones? Domains where users have until now felt free to use their mailboxes as they see fit (posting to mailing lists, as From: in on-behalf-of s

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > On 6/8/2014 10:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> >> To express how strong I feel about this >> >> If there is a charter for a new DMARC WG work, you can bet I will >> request that any form of 5322.From-Corruption concept

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > NNTP was designed 30 years ago. We should consider moving on. The > modern protocol world is JSON/REST Let's not be so quick to dismiss NNTP: it's a more elegant weapon from a more civilized age. ;) It has long since proven i

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Dave Crocker wrote: > > Actually I have a pretty typical view, relative to folks who have to > direct experience with human factors, UI/UX, cognitive, memory and > attention models, and the like. And as I said, I made a point of > testing my summary judgement with a group of real experts, last sum

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > >> The person on this list that actually represents a mailing list so far >> seems to like the idea, and has explained why to some extent. I think >> that's much more valuable feedback. >> > > More valuable than other feedback? > [...] > F

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 10:00 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Vlatko Salaj mailto:vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk>> wrote: "introducing new ML requirements" has already been characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few of them already, and all much simpler than an

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Dave Crocker writes: > I am assuming that working with filtering engines is better than trying > to work with 1-3 billion end users. That's a pretty stiff requirement. I'd be satisfied if a simple indicator, e.g. based on parsing Authentication-Results, saved 1-3 end users from a phishing atta

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:59 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Or do you mean something else when you say "new ML requirements"? i wasn't talking about DKIM-Delegate, nor is this its thread, so, while i will get to ur arguments in DKIM-D thread, they miss the point here. -- Vlatko Salaj ak

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 1:27 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> > Each of those conditionals will not actually be satisfied. User's >> > tend not to notice such things. The tend not to understand what >> > they mean. Even when they understand, they tend to evaluate >> > choices poorly. They tend to apply choic

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 11:22 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Dave Crocker writes: > > Everything gets much easier if we specify guidance for filtering > > engines, before humans come into the picture. > > But now you are assuming filters that are very close to 100% accurate! No. I am assuming that work

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

- Original Message - > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > To: "Barry Leiba" > Cc: "Dave Crocker" , dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:33:16 PM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC. > > Barry

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > "introducing new ML requirements" has already been > characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few > of them already, and all much simpler than any YADAs. > The person on this list that actually represents a mailing list so far seems t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Hector Santos writes: > Are you oppose to any other domain using strong policies or just > certain ones? Domains where users have until now felt free to use their mailboxes as they see fit (posting to mailing lists, as From: in on-behalf-of services, etc) should not suddenly impose "p=reject"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Barry Leiba writes: > But the more important point is that you're presupposing that the > changes are "better", Yes and no. Obviously, if it is impossible to improve the MUAs, there's no point in discussing it. In that sense, I have to presume that improvements exist. That doesn't mean I ass

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 7:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >The premise of your proposal is that users will notice that there's > extra information, know what to do with it, and do the right thing, > with reasonable consistency. ... > Each of those conditionals will not actually be satisfied. User's

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

> >The premise of your proposal is that users will notice that there's > > extra information, know what to do with it, and do the right thing, > > with reasonable consistency. ... > > Each of those conditionals will not actually be satisfied. User's > > tend not to notice such things. Th

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 2:16 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: I'm not proposing additional validation. As I've said before, I have no quarrel with the DMARC protocol or its component protocols (at least I've not found a reason to dislike it yet), although I strongly dislike Yahoo!'s policy use of "p=reject"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Dave Crocker writes: >The premise of your proposal is that users will notice that there's > extra information, know what to do with it, and do the right thing, > with reasonable consistency. Yes, yes, yes, and yes. > Each of those conditionals will not actually be satisfied. User's > t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ [it] introduces new ML requirements. >>> So rather than offer dismissive, summary comments, >>> please offer criticisms of technical substance. >> i would rather not

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 9:11 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:49 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ >>> the master-piece of DKIM messiness. unfortunately, >>> it doesn't solve current ML problem, but introduces >>> new ML require

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:49 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ >> the master-piece of DKIM messiness. unfortunately, >> it doesn't solve current ML problem, but introduces >> new ML requirements. > So rather than offer dismissive, sum

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 8:37 AM, Vlatko Salaj wrote: > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ > > the master-piece of DKIM messiness. unfortunately, > it doesn't solve current ML problem, but introduces > new ML

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/10/2014 8:16 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I'm suggesting the information could be used in the MUA UI. ... > (4) Recipient MUA has a choice of > (a) Displaying decorated Subject verbatim. > (b) Displaying z= Subject verbatim. > (c) Matching decorated and z= subjects, and discar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ the master-piece of DKIM messiness. unfortunately, it doesn't solve current ML problem, but introduces new ML requirements. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodo

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: > > > [2] PGP can be worked around by placing the signed body in a separate > > MIME part from the header and/or footer parts, and DKIM could at least > > be adapted to decorated subjects using z= an

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > [2] PGP can be worked around by placing the signed body in a separate > MIME part from the header and/or footer parts, and DKIM could at least > be adapted to decorated subjects using z= and footers using l=, > although this would requ

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

J. Gomez writes: > I can understand the welcomed vs unwelcomed thing, but I do not > agree with calling the alteration "decoration" in one place but > "corruption" in the other. > > Loading the language in such a way is asking for a given conclusion > even before the debate has started. Th

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:30 PM, J. Gomez wrote: > On Monday, June 09, 2014 8:01 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matt Simerson wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Brandon Long wrote: >> >>> The message is already corrupted, or there wouldn't be a problem to >>> be solved. >> >> When the message arrives at

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Monday, June 09, 2014 8:01 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matt Simerson wrote: > On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > > > The message is already corrupted, or there wouldn't be a problem to > > be solved. > > When the message arrives at the list, it's unlikely that it's already > corrupted.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > Fundamentally, any From-Corruption (good term to use) concept is bad. 30 > years of mail software/product/hosting development across multiple networks > tells me so, it ethically burns inside me as wrong and I have strong > confidence the IET

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/9/2014 2:01 AM, Matt Simerson wrote: I also fail to see how this is a security issue. Agreed. It's *really* easy to filter and block delivery for non-existent domains. That is exactly what will be required to mitigate and close this new security hole. if mail.from.tld is ".invalid

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > The message is already corrupted, or there wouldn't be a problem to be solved. When the message arrives at the list, it's unlikely that it's already corrupted. What has been described is corrupting the From header by the same entity that is a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/8/2014 10:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: To express how strong I feel about this If there is a charter for a new DMARC WG work, you can bet I will request that any form of 5322.From-Corruption concept be considered OFF TOPIC and OUT OF SCOPE in the new WG charter exc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > On 6/8/2014 1:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > >> Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: >> >> > NNTP was designed 30 years ago. We should consider moving on. >> > The modern protocol world is JSON/REST >> >> That's off-topic for this list, IMO,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/8/2014 1:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > NNTP was designed 30 years ago. We should consider moving on. > The modern protocol world is JSON/REST That's off-topic for this list, IMO, and I don't intend to discuss it unless the moderator(s) make clear that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/8/2014 2:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > NNTP was built to save bandwidth, Flooding protocols do not do a very good job of saving bandwidth. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org http

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/8/2014 7:00 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > The mention of Usenet suggested a completely "out of the box" way to > sidestep DMARC impact by avoiding SMTP entirely, using NNTP as an > alternative transport. I merely wanted to make it clear that GNU > Mailman is *technically* prepared to think

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > NNTP was designed 30 years ago. We should consider moving on. > The modern protocol world is JSON/REST That's off-topic for this list, IMO, and I don't intend to discuss it unless the moderator(s) make clear that it is on-topic. What I believe is on-topic is that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I'm not sure what the long list of addressees was about, but I'm not > comfortable with them. Feel free to repost my message if you wish. > > Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > > > In the medium term, lets kill the stupidity of mailing li

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/8/2014 12:38 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <5393423a.2000...@gmail.com> you write: >> On 6/7/2014 6:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >>> I don't know what the problem that prevented netnews from >>> obsoleting mailing lists is >> >> At base, netnews and mailing lists are entirely differ

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

In article <5393423a.2000...@gmail.com> you write: >On 6/7/2014 6:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> I don't know what the problem that prevented netnews from >> obsoleting mailing lists is > >At base, netnews and mailing lists are entirely different kinds of human >communication services. The c

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On 6/7/2014 6:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I don't know what the problem that prevented netnews from > obsoleting mailing lists is At base, netnews and mailing lists are entirely different kinds of human communication services. The critical construct that highlights the difference is: su

[dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

I'm not sure what the long list of addressees was about, but I'm not comfortable with them. Feel free to repost my message if you wish. Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > In the medium term, lets kill the stupidity of mailing lists with a > protocol that works. NNTP was originally designed to repl

[dmarc-ietf] Change the mailing list protocol, not DMARC.

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > Let me ask, what if a fedex.com employee use this email domain for > subscribing to the IETF list? Any subsequent problems are irrelevant unless FedEx, the owner of fedex.com considers them to be relevant. That is what folk complaining don'