There is a much bigger problem with the IETF mail servers, I’ve reported it several times to AMS and other folks from the IAOC have been informed as I understand, but nobody is providing any solution, and as a consequence, we are subjected to receive SPAM, as we are accepting emails from subscribers which are in spam black-lists. This problem also means that if you own mail server (which many of us don’t control), is configured to reject messages from black-listed IPs, then when you reject emails from such folks, the IETF considers that your email address is bouncing, and unsubscribes you. I’ve this problem every other week, in the general area list and also in some others related to DNS (which probably means that the black-listed servers are from people contributing mainly to DNS exploders). This is my view about the problem, which has been ignored up to now: 1) IETF is accepting messages from subscribers with MX which are Blacklisted. 2) IETF send those emails also with the original headers. —> that’s why when AMS staff send the logs that I requested, it appears like the IETF is black-listed, which is not the case, but a couple of senders to IETF exploders. 3) Mail servers inspect the IETF and original headers looking for black-listed servers. 4) If they are strict, bounce emails from IETF even if the IETF records aren’t black-listed but the original sender MX is black-listed So, we need a policy here. Either: A) IETF doesn’t accept messages from black-listed servers. ——> if we don’t do so, we may be affecting ALL the subscribers, and even worst, a SPAMER could subscribe to IETF and send SPAM to ALL our subscribers. An even worst, once IETF mail es bounced because the black-list, some antispam systems increase the IETF rating as “possible spammer”, which is not good. Or B) IETF clean-up the original sender header (before sending to the mail exploder) to avoid bounces. Alternatively, not sure how this will work, we could just allow “bounces” from subscribers (may be even a big number such as 40-50), instead of disabling the membership. We may need to retry more times sending emails to subscribers, increasing the time between retries, and after no bouncing for “x” many days, resetting counters for this subscriber. When I got the logs from AMS (august 2015), the offenders where: 149.171.193.32 - Australia Sydney University Of New South Wales, black-listed by sorbs And 198.57.247.250 - United States New York City Unified Layer, black-listed by spamhaus Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> Responder a: <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> Fecha: jueves, 22 de octubre de 2015, 17:42 Para: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: DMARC stuff >>Totally the wrong thread, so I'll apologize profusely now. > >Subject line changed. > >>GMail is set to turn on DMARC reject strict by sometime early next >>year [1] being one of the last big web mail providers to do so; so, >>Mailman "From:" rewriting (or turning on the ability for IETF list >>subscribers to toggle this for their sends) might need to be done for >>IETF lists. > >Members of the DMARC group have submitted two drafts >draft-andersen-arc-00 and draft-jones-arc-usage-00 which describe a >mutation of DKIM intended to let mailing lists coexist with DMARC >without having to do ugly hacks like rewriting the From: line. I have >reason to believe that several large mail systems intend to implement >this reasonably soon. > >The obvious place to discuss this is the DMARC WG, not here. > >R's, >John > >