John:
On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:On 25/02/2016
05:06, Michael Richardson wrote:
Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
We are in the process of upgrading mailman. As part of that upgrade
there are new settings. The Secretariat has been discussing the various
choices for those new settings with some of the Tools Team. If there is
anyone in the community that has a lot of experience with mailman
setting, we would like to consult with you.
Good, thank you for this update.
I'd like to ask that we capture the reasons (the thought process) for the
settings into at least a wiki page, if not a BCP.
Yes, and maybe leave a little time for public debate before implementation,
because a lot of people's working habits may be affected.
Things seem to have been (publicly) silent on the topic of IETF mailing lists
and DMARC since feb. Can we have an update please?
This is my understanding of the current situation. First, no one offered to
assist with the new Mailman settings. We remain open to community review and
suggestions.
The IETF mail server does not reject on SPF or DMARC mismatches. All incoming
email is passed through SPAM Assassin, and SPF/DMARC are taken into account in
the scoring system.
Outgoing Mailman email still has the problem. Mailman has an option we can
enable to force DMARC-spoofing sender rewriting of all outgoing Mailman email.
If we enable that option, the From: field rewriting and could be disruptive in
unknown ways.
We know that outgoing alias email still has the problem. The Secretariat is
did some experiments with some additional headers (Resent-*) to alias mail.
They were not able to determine whether this headers helped destination servers
or not.
Russ