John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I agree strongly with you: the IETF needs to do something in some
>> direction.
>>
>> That something could be to properly reject email with a DMARC policy
>> that does not permit forwarding. That would piss off an awful lot of
>> IETF participants, but it would be simple, since it requires no
>> protocol changes, just social changes.
> Hmmn, the one approach that is unambiguously worse than doing nothing,
Good, we agree about this, but, I still think we need to lead with a carrot
(new DMARC spec to solve the problem), and a stick (date at which we will
comply to DMARC)
> since it would confirm every worst fear that we're more interested in
> playing purity games than in getting work done.
That's one way to look at it, and I'm not saying it's wrong.
I think it shows that we actually care about the contents of our
specifications, and that we actually expect others to.
> If we actually want to do something, we should decide what to do and do
> it.
> It's not like there's any mystery about what the options are. This
> page in the old ASRG wiki lists them all and hasn't changed in ages:
> http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_mail
> The options built into mailman 2 are:
> * moderate or reject DMARC'ed submissions
> * rewrite the From: line with the list address
> * wrap messages sort of like one-message digests
Hah. So this is the same debate 6man has about IPv6 Extension Header
insertion :-)
> Personally, I think those are all pretty bad, so we should do something
> else. (If I had to pick one, I'd pick the last one since it's the
> easiest to undo on the way in.)
It's been like two years that I said the same thing.
> My preferred approach until ARC is usable is to rewrite the From:
> address to a legible forwarding address. The IETF already handles a
> bazillion forwarding addresses for I-D and RFC authors, so I'd think it
> wouldn't be terribly hard to adapt that. You don't have to change any
> mailman code; you can do everything in a shim between the list manager
> and the outgoing postfix submission program.
I call this NAT for email.
I'd rather do IPIP for email and wrap the messages.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature