There's a pretty clear ops problem here that could be solved by simply detecting addresses with DMARC and rewriting the From: headers on those messages. This would eliminate all problems immediately. Then there are protocol solutions that might be adopted over time, but will continue to present problems in the near term. I would think that the pragmatic thing to do would be to do the immediate fix, and then later on try to phase in the protocol fix. Ideally, the protocol fix would be detectable. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:04 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Levine >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 12:56 PM >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC >> >> In article <CAPt1N1k1wg9mbN-guuarFP0NvX7v-suOY-bP=TDEOCVhK- >> epmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >> >And yet it is still happening, despite there being a great deal of >> >discussion in the archives... :/ >> >> Yes, because at this point, all of the solutions are worse than the problem. >> See this page for a roundup of DMARC mitigations: >> >> http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Mitigating_DMARC_damage_to_third_party_ma >> il >> >> The work on ARC is coming along fairly fast. There was a second compatibility >> event a couple of weeks ago among various implementations, and people >> tell me there should be usable libraries around the end of the year. Once >> there's an ARC addon for Mailman and we use that, the DMARC damage >> should drop considerably, without us having to change the way we use our >> lists. >> > > It's not clear to me that this is true John. DMARC Validators will need to take ARC into consideration and we don't know what adoption will look like other than a handful of players at this point. > > Mike >