Subject: Google.com hops on the DMARC bandwagon

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Apr 2014 15:16:05 -0400

I see that google.com now publishes a DMARC policy of p=quarantine.

While this won't bounce people off lists like p=reject does, it still 
makes it fairly pointless to post to this or any other list from a 
google.com address, since no recipients hosted at Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, 
AOL, Comcast, or other large providers will see it.

If you're at Google, you might want to find yourself a less broken 
address, and perhaps ask the people in your mail team if their intention 
was to tell you not to particpate in the IETF on work time.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:30:29 -0400

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> While this won't bounce people off lists like p=reject does, it still makes
> it fairly pointless to post to this or any other list from a google.com

google.com or gmail.com ?

(corporate users or regular-old-consumer-gmail-users)

> address, since no recipients hosted at Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, Comcast,
> or other large providers will see it.
>
> If you're at Google, you might want to find yourself a less broken address,
> and perhaps ask the people in your mail team if their intention was to tell
> you not to particpate in the IETF on work time.
>
> Regards,

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:33:00 -0700

Below:

> (corporate users or regular-old-consumer-gmail-users)

google.com:

https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/google.com

- ferg

-- 
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:33:22 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:30 PM
> To: John R Levine
> Cc: IETF general list
> Subject: Re: Google.com hops on the DMARC bandwagon
> 
> > google.com

Gmail.com is still p=none.

> > address, since no recipients hosted at Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL,
> > Comcast, or other large providers will see it.
> >
> > address, and perhaps ask the people in your mail team if their
> > intention was to tell you not to particpate in the IETF on work time.
> >
> > Regards,

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:55:25 -0400

> Gmail.com is still p=none.

Ahh... so we can't expect to see Vint in any of the ietf discussions in 
the near future!

Hmmm.... Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:00:44 -0400

On 4/29/14, 4:55 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Ahh... so we can't expect to see Vint in any of the ietf discussions 
> in the near future!

Anyone with mail servers that look at the dmarc settings won't see 
postings. People behind mail servers that do NOT look at the dmarc 
settings will see the postings just fine.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 23:13:27 +0200

> settings will see the postings just fine.

To paraphrase: WYPIWYG (What You Publish Is What You Get).

/rolf

And, yes, there are a number of other meanings that fit the same acronym 
[1].

[1] http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/WYPIWYG

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)

> > settings will see the postings just fine.

No, because those postings will bounce, and cause those users to get
unsubscribed from the list. In order to protect such subscribers from that, the
list owner has limited options, none of which are good. For example, one of
them is to block all users from that domain from posting.

> To paraphrase: WYPIWYG (What You Publish Is What You Get).

I think a paraphrase of Brian Reid is more in order here:

WYPIWYD (What You Publish Is What You Deserve)

				Ned

---

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:19:47 +0200

On 04/29/2014 11:36 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> unsubscribed from the list. 

But in this case, we're talking about the p=quarantine policy that 
Google published for google.com... No bouncing (and hence no automatic 
unsubscription, unless a receiver interprets p=quarantine as 'please 
reject').

/rolf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:36:34 -0700 (PDT)

> unsubscription, unless a receiver interprets p=quarantine as 'please

Fair point. My observation about the appropriate acronym stands, however.

				Ned

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:11:13 -0400

> Fair point. My observation about the appropriate acronym stands, however.

And some of us have already pointed out internally that this might
cause engineers at Google (including folks like Vint) to not be able
to participate on external mailing lists as effectively, since some
percentage of the mailing list recipients might not receive their
message.

And if that means a Google engineer tries to send a patch to an
upstream open source maintainer via a mailing list, and the maintainer
doesn't see the patch or bug report because it got silently dropped by
their MTA (or put in some spam/junk folder), well, that's Google's
loss, and not necessarily the open source project's problem.

Me, I use a non-google.com e-mail address for my external mailing list
discussions, so it's not going to be a problem for me.  :-)

					- Ted

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Apr 2014 02:32:24 -0000

>Fair point. My observation about the appropriate acronym stands, however.

Actually, mail with google.com From: addresses is bouncing.  I see
bounces from mxlogic among others.  No, I don't know why they're
treating p=quarantine as though it were p=reject, but they are.

The acronym is more appropriate than ever.

R's,
John

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:21:53 -0400

Tony Hansen <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >>>>> While this won't bounce people off lists like p=reject does, it
    >>>>> still makes it fairly pointless to post to this or any other list
    >>>>> from a google.com
    >>>>

    > settings will see the postings just fine.

@google.com people will get kicked off mailing lists due to bounces
From other @google.com people.

So, you can have Vint on the list, or Lorenzo, or Harald, but not both :-)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-