Re: [dmarc-discuss] DMARC reports

[Peter Bowen via dmarc-discuss]

Thanks, that is really helpful.

It would be really nifty to add a “DMARC 1.0 compliance” percentage next to 
each sender.  I’m seeing lots of reports that don’t follow the XML format 
defined in the RFC.

Thanks,
Peter

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Matt Vernhout  wrote:
> 
> This is a fairly good list of potential DMARC senders: 
> https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-status/ 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> ~ 
> MATT VERNHOUT
> Founder, Editor
> 
> EmailKarma.net 
> It's not the size of your list, it's how you use it!
> 
> My profiles:      
>     
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Peter Bowen via dmarc-discuss 
> mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote:
> Does anyone maintain a list of receivers known to send DMARC reports?  I 
> enabled DMARC reporting for a domain we use for sending and have gotten 
> reports so far from 126.com , AOL, Belgacom, CapitalOne, 
> Cisco, Comcast, FastMail, Google, Infor, Microsoft, mail.ru 
> , NetEase (163.com ), QQ,and Yahoo.
> 
> From these reports, I’ve seen a number of different variations that do not 
> follow the XML Schema in RFC 7489.  I know there is the DMARC WG at IETF, but 
> I haven’t seen any updates on the core spec, so I’m hoping someone 
> implementing DMARC may have sorted out what is considered acceptable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
> ___
> 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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 05:11:34 AM Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss 
wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
> >>> So I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change my mind.  I guess if
> >>> the large providers think this is useful, then meh, OK,
> >> 
> >> That would be the guys who receive more than half of the world's email? I
> >> would rank that slightly above "meh", but sure, for small guys it's not
> >> yet obvious what value ARC provides. I'd suggest a wait-and-see
> >> approach.
> > 
> > Yes, exactly.  Pretty much the entire value of ARC is the strong hint
> > that the gorillas plan to implement it as a workaround to DMARC issues.
> 
> I am perhaps imaging things, but my recollection is that there is not merely
> a hint that ARC is being devised and implemented for this purpose, but that
> this was the openly stated rationale.

It would be nice if we didn't design standards that only worked at a certain 
scale.  "You must be this tall to ride" worries me.  

Solving the mailing list 'problem' in a way that requires me to switch to 
gmail (or some other large scale provider) to get my list mail delivered is 
worse than no solution at all for me.

Scott K
___
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss]

John Levine wrote:

>>> So I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change my mind.  I guess if the
>>> large providers think this is useful, then meh, OK,
>>
>> That would be the guys who receive more than half of the world's email? I 
>> would rank that
>> slightly above "meh", but sure, for small guys it's not yet obvious what 
>> value ARC
>> provides. I'd suggest a wait-and-see approach.
>
> Yes, exactly.  Pretty much the entire value of ARC is the strong hint
> that the gorillas plan to implement it as a workaround to DMARC issues.

I am perhaps imaging things, but my recollection is that there is not merely a 
hint that ARC is being devised and implemented for this purpose, but that this 
was the openly stated rationale.

- Roland
___
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[Scott Kitterman via dmarc-discuss]

Let's save histrionics about bullying for actual bullying.  


Scott K

On February 11, 2016 5:19:08 PM EST, Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss 
 wrote:
>John, the critic is always easy, stop bullying please.
>
>On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:58 PM, John Levine  wrote:
>
>> >Smells like:
>> >
>> >From: Paypal Security secur...@paypal.com 
>> >
>> >Not sure it is a good idea.
>>
>> It's a terrible idea.  Too bad some ill-designed security scheme
>> forces people to do stuff like that.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss]

John, the critic is always easy, stop bullying please.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:58 PM, John Levine  wrote:

> >Smells like:
> >
> >From: Paypal Security secur...@paypal.com 
> >
> >Not sure it is a good idea.
>
> It's a terrible idea.  Too bad some ill-designed security scheme
> forces people to do stuff like that.
>
> R's,
> John
>
___
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[John Levine via dmarc-discuss]

>Smells like:
>
>From: Paypal Security secur...@paypal.com 
>
>Not sure it is a good idea.

It's a terrible idea.  Too bad some ill-designed security scheme
forces people to do stuff like that.

R's,
John
___
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[Franck Martin via dmarc-discuss]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Steve Atkins via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 10, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss <
> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> >
> > John Levine wrote:
> >
> >> How is this different from everyone's favorite alleged mailing list
> >> solution?
> >>
> >> From: Foo list on behalf of Jane Smith 
> > ...
> >> PS: well, other than it's a little more explicit about where the
> >> responsibility lies
> >
> > That is the difference.
> >
> > I'd prefer:
> >
> >From: Foo list [Jane Smith] 
> >CC: Jane Smith 
> >
> > as "on behalf of" is a little too verbose but, yes, making sure that the
> distinction remains generally visible without:
> >
> > - becoming extremely inconvenient (private replies become impossible
> because the author's email address is missing), or
> > - violating the principle of least astonishment[1] (wait, the list
> operator caused my private reply to be routed through his mail-server?)
>
> Given that the important identifier is often the email address (“Which Bob
> are you?”, “Who is your employer?”) I think that any approach that
> intentionally obscures the actual author in that way is less than ideal.
>
> From: Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com 
>
>
Smells like:

From: Paypal Security secur...@paypal.com 

Not sure it is a good idea.
___
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)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] introduction to the list-virtual server & mailman questions

[John Levine via dmarc-discuss]

>> So I hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change my mind.  I guess if the
>> large providers think this is useful, then meh, OK,
>
>That would be the guys who receive more than half of the world's email? I 
>would rank that
>slightly above "meh", but sure, for small guys it's not yet obvious what value 
>ARC
>provides. I'd suggest a wait-and-see approach.

Yes, exactly.  Pretty much the entire value of ARC is the strong hint
that the gorillas plan to implement it as a workaround to DMARC issues.

R's,
John
___
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)