On 21/07/2016 05:42, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/20/2016 7:34 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > There is an effort (ARC) to develop a capability that might let
>> > DMARC-related
>> > messages survive transit of a mailing list, but that effort is still
>> > nascent.
>>
>> It's been two years of "please wait" (or is it three?)
>
> Indeed. And it will be longer before a work-around is both developed and deployed. You're welcome. No, really, it was a
> pleasure contributing to the effort...
>
>
>> I think that it is time to reject email coming into mailing lists that
>> has p=reject policy, and not forward it, as that is the policy of the mail
>> system.
>
> Go ahead. I'm sure the relevant users will not pursue any remedies at losing connectivity, such as moving to a different list
> provider.
>
> Which is to say, that I and almost all others are /very/ unhappy with this 'side effect' problem caused by DMARC, but that
> real-world pragmatics are making it unrealistic to take simple, purity-based actions in response.
Yes. So I repeat the question: Since the most pragmatic, non-purity-based
solution is to rewrite the sender field for mail from p=reject (or p=quarantine)
domains, when will we change the IETF and IRTF mailmen to do so?
I'm happy to help experiment for any lists for which I am an admin, but we need
the IETF's IT support to take this very seriously very soon. The day that gmail
changes its policy, I estimate that at least 20% of the IETF will be broken.
Brian