Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dave,

Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/12/2014 12:56 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- DMARC.org defines the "DMARC Base Specification" with a link to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ - an IETF
document

While the Internet-Draft mechanism is operated by the IETF, it is an open mechanism and issuance through it carries no automatic status, particularly with respect to the IETF.

The DMARC specification is not 'an IETF document'. The current plan is to publish it as an RFC, through the 'Independent' stream, which also is /not/ an IETF activity.


My point is that the folks behind dmarc PRESENT it in a way that implicitly makes it look like an IETF document, and that it's on the standards track. The reality, as you say, is different. "Plan to" is vaporware.

- the referenced document is an informational  Internet draft, that

Drafts do not have status. So the qualifier 'informational' here is not meaningful.

As currently published, it carries the header

Intended status: Informational


In essence, DMARC is being represented as a mature, standards-track IETF
specification - with the implication that it's been widely vetted, and
is marching through the traditional experimental -> optional ->
recommended -> mandatory steps that IETF standards go through.

In reality:
- DMARC was developed by a tiny number of people, all of whom work for
very large ISPs

Well, a few of us who participated don't...

fair enough - but again, just look at http://dmarc.org/about.html - I don't see your name, or any other small individuals or ISPs - what I do see are
"A group of leading organizations came together in the spring of 2011"
and
"The founding contributors include:

 * *Receivers:* AOL, Comcast, GMail, Hotmail, Netease, Yahoo! Mail
 * *Senders:* American Greetings, Bank of America, Facebook, Fidelity,
   JP Morgan Chase, LinkedIn, PayPal
 * *Intermediaries & Vendors:* Agari, Cloudmark, ReturnPath, Trusted
   Domain Project"

This was very much an industry-based effort.


- as far as I can tell, all input from the broader community - notably
mailing list developers and operators was roundly ignored or dismissed
(the transcript is really clear on this)

What transcript?  I'm not aware of its being 'ignored or dismissed'.

Funny, that's the impression I get when I read back through the archives for dmarc-discuss@xxxxxxxxx and dmarc@xxxxxxxx

pretty much all discussion of aligning the From: field came down to - "you change"


- while DMARC is at least partially tested, deploying and honoring
"p=reject" messages is brand new, and has wreaked tremendous damage
across the net

It's not new at all, though of course Yahoo's use is distinctive.

Depends on your definition of "new" - and while DMARC builds on an older base, DMARC itself was started in 2011, and I assume the first standards and software are more recent then that.

As you say, Yahoo's use is "distinctive" - though I'd use a somewhat stronger word.


- as far as I can tell, those who are behind DMARC are taking the
position "it's not our problem" (see discussions on
dmarc-discuss@xxxxxxxxx and dmarc@xxxxxxxx) - and there is nary a Yahoo
representative to be seen anywhere

I've no idea what specifics you are referring to.

I've been following the discussions, on lots of lists, and I've yet to see someone say even "I'm from Yahoo and we feel your pain" - much less "hmm... maybe this wasn't such a good idea, we're going to back off and implement in a slightly gentler manner - and maybe provide some support to help patch the major list management packages" - or even "our implementation honors Original-Authentication-Results"

nope - as far as I can tell, the folks who turned on p=reject at Yahoo don't seem to have even told their own security or customer care folks about what's going on - at least when this first broke, and I contacted Yahoo's postmaster (thinking I needed to get our servers back on the whitelist) - they just pointed me at the whitelist request form



The situation strikes me as incredibly perverse and broken - the more so
that the perpetrators are presenting this as blessed by the IETF
standards process.

I haven't seen anyone present such a claim of blessing. Please point to the specifics.

I fear you are confusing the difference between a desire for standards status with a claim of its having been granted.

No... I'm quoting the way that dmarc.org is presenting the "DMARC Draft Specification" - as marching through the IETF standards track, as it is generally understood, and then hiding in the fine print that no such thing has happened, or is currently happening

I'm not confused. It is, and I think intentionally, being presented in a way that is intended to confuse. And I personally think that IETF should be calling them on it. Officially, loudly, and clearly. (The same way that Xerox and Kleenex jump down the throats of anybody who tries to use their names generically. )

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]