On 13/08/2016 10:23, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > I couldn’t agree more. Yes. It's been months and we need to know ASAP which of the various remediations the IETF mailing list service will apply. We all know that there's no ideal solution but practicality requires something to be done now. Mail via IETF lists being rejected or quarantined by mainstream mail services is not OK. It's actually quite hard to discover if the mail service one is using is rejecting messages. I know that rewriting breaks some peoples' procmail setups, and I sympathise with that, but it's a matter of choosing the least bad solution: On 13/08/2016 11:15, John Levine wrote: ... > There are DMARC workarounds that are more work but suck less. > > See http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail Regards Brian > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:20 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> Regardless of details, applying some sort of remediation to >> ietf.org/mailman is becoming more pressing IMV -- I am noticing that >> email, sent from pingidentity.com (p=quarantine; pct=100;) via IETF >> mailing lists, is not being delivered to my paypal.com inbox at all. >> Also, the same is occurring for some email from microsoft.com >> (p=quarantine; pct=30;). The same is true for email I might send via my @ >> paypal.com persona. >> >> The W3C mailing list manager (MLM) is apparently configured to do >> rfc5322.from field re-writing which seems to ameliorate the DMARC-MLM >> issues (in my experience, at least), and it would be helpful if the IETF >> would take similar measures. >> >> thanks, >> >> =JeffH