Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
>> 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.
huh? what we heard was:
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.
So, I think we are waiting for some posting to tools-discuss about what the
settings are going to be.
> 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.
okay, so I believe that the 10 nomcom members need to be given @ietf.org
accounts available via IMAP for their deliberations, as the DMARC debacle
has essentially broken the ability for the nomcom to receive comments.
(I hope that will get through the china firewall, because email regularly
failed in all the years I was involved)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature