This is not the point

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

> To start with, you'll have to explain why receivers should trust a sender
> to
> not lie about where they got the mail from in an ARC header field if they
> don't
> already trust the sender.
>
> Scott K
>
> On Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:14:12 AM Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss
> wrote:
> > ARC will help, but there are many mailing lists that don't have DKIM or
> > even SPF. So even if ARC is available tomorrow, it may take years before
> > mailing lists adopt any solution. So someone will have to make a stand,
> to
> > get operators to deploy something.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss <
> >
> > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> > > The mailing list question can be a bit tricky. Yeah, the DKIM
> > > signature is supposed to transport just fine, unless your MLM rewrites
> > > any header or content that breaks the signature. And when you deal
> > > with that, eventually you're going to run into list subscribers whose
> > > posts get rejected by some other subscribers, due to the poster's
> > > domain having a P=reject DMARC policy.
> > >
> > > I would say there's not a clear consensus on how best to handle
> > > mailing lists in a DKIM+DMARC world. A bunch of email folks are
> > > working on a standard called Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) that
> > > would in theory help to address issues with mailing lists. (See
> > > http://arc-spec.org/ ). But, we're a ways from being able to call that
> > > a solution.
> > >
> > > I'm a mailing list operator myself, at probably about the same level
> > > you are. (Instead of Mailman, I run a custom MLM that I wrote myself,
> > > mostly as a programming exercise.) What I have chosen to do is strip
> > > an existing DKIM signature, rewrite the from address if it appears to
> > > be a domain that has a restrictive DMARC policy, and then sign it with
> > > DKIM as the list domain. This works well for me, but not everybody
> > > agrees that it's the best path. I'm not the only one to have done
> > > something similar; Yahoo Groups, Google Groups Mail-list.com and
> > > OnlineGroups.net all send as the group instead of as the poster either
> > > all the time or as needed; and mailman can be configured similarly.
> > >
> > > Here's a link to an overview of the various issues in play for mailing
> > > lists, and info on what I and others have chosen to do to address it.
> > > http://www.spamresource.com/2015/02/dmarc-mailing-lists-roundup.html
> > >
> > > Here's where to go to learn more about what you can do with Mailman:
> > > http://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC
> > >
> > > Note: There will probably be at least one really angry reply to this
> > > post telling me how horrible this is and that I broke mailing lists.
> > > It'll be a rehash of an argument from more than a year ago. Truth be
> > > told, somebody else broke mailing lists; this is just how I personally
> > > decided to implement a fix that seems to work well for me. YMMV.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Al Iverson
> > >
> > > --
> > > Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130
> > > Simple DNS Tools since 2008: xnnd.com
> > > www.spamresource.com & aliverson.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dmarc-discuss mailing list
> > > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> > > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
> > >
> > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> > > terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well
> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Reply via email to