John: >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 25/02/2016 05:06, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> >>> Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> We are in the process of upgrading mailman. As part of that upgrade >>>> there are new settings. The Secretariat has been discussing the various >>>> choices for those new settings with some of the Tools Team. If there is >>>> anyone in the community that has a lot of experience with mailman >>>> setting, we would like to consult with you. >>> >>> Good, thank you for this update. >>> >>> I'd like to ask that we capture the reasons (the thought process) for the >>> settings into at least a wiki page, if not a BCP. >> >> Yes, and maybe leave a little time for public debate before implementation, >> because a lot of people's working habits may be affected. > > Things seem to have been (publicly) silent on the topic of IETF mailing lists and DMARC since feb. Can we have an update please? This is my understanding of the current situation. First, no one offered to assist with the new Mailman settings. We remain open to community review and suggestions. The IETF mail server does not reject on SPF or DMARC mismatches. All incoming email is passed through SPAM Assassin, and SPF/DMARC are taken into account in the scoring system. Outgoing Mailman email still has the problem. Mailman has an option we can enable to force DMARC-spoofing sender rewriting of all outgoing Mailman email. If we enable that option, the From: field rewriting and could be disruptive in unknown ways. We know that outgoing alias email still has the problem. The Secretariat is did some experiments with some additional headers (Resent-*) to alias mail. They were not able to determine whether this headers helped destination servers or not. Russ