There has been some discussion on what should the IETF do about the collateral damage experienced by several mailing lists when major mailbox providers switch their DMARC policies to p=reject. Mailing lists used to be a legitimate use of email. Albeit they are the workhorse of many organizations which are vital for the Internet itself, such as the IETF and several software projects, statistically they are a minor Internet feature. I can understand that after decades of failed attempts to control email abuse, their disappearance is not the main concern of "p=reject" proponents. The discussion on ietf-822 brought some mailing list assumptions --much needed, since ML were never formally standardized-- as well as a few proposals. Now the discussion seems to be fading out, even if no actionable result was reached. The solutions proposed, in order of decreasing ease (IMHO), are: * Whitelisting, * weak signatures, * permission to re-sign, and * exchange of cryptographic data. All of those solutions require that originators' relays know whether a message is destined to a mailing list. That is a delicate subject in itself, as it involves privacy considerations --does a subscriber consent to allowing her or his mailbox providers to know which lists she or he is on? The DMARC draft is currently in "AD Followup" state. A review was posted here last week, a process which doesn't seem to affect deployment much. How is the IETF going to proceed on this issue? Ale