Subject: gmail users read on...

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:05:53 +1200

I hate to bring this topic up again but people should perhaps be aware
that some legitimate IETF mail is now being automatically spam filtered
for gmail recipients. Here is an anonymized version of what I just wrote
to someone.

Be aware that as a result of corporate IT decisions at your company and
at Google, your mail to IETF lists is being forcibly tagged as spam for
gmail recipients.

1) Example is announcing DMARC p=reject policy:

_dmarc.example.com   text =

        "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject"

2) gmail asserts a DMARC failure when your mail has been forwarded
by an IETF list such as XYZ:

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email-masked] designates 2001:xxxxxxxxx as permitted sender)
smtp.mail=[email-masked];
       dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org;
       dmarc=fail (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=example.com

3) then gmail forcibly classes your message as spam.

Since many IETF participants use gmail, many people (myself included)
will not be seeing your mail unless they happen to check their spam
folder.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:49:19 -0400

Brian,

I have been seeing this somewhat, especially from people sending from Yahoo
email to IETF lists. Thanks for the reminder.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:11:01 -0400

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:05:53PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> for gmail recipients. 

Gmail, like Yahoo and Hotmail and AOL, is sporadically useful for casual
purposes where mail transmission and receipt isn't terribly important.
But it's much too poorly operated to be acceptable for professional use.
And of course it's well-known that attempts to contact a clueful human
behind the Google monolith are nearly always destined to fail.

---rsk

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:48:12 -0700

> But it's much too poorly operated to be acceptable for professional use.

Plus the fact that "@yahoo.com" and "@gmail.com" (etc.) serve as good first-level 'Bozo Filters'.  DMARC serves as yet another reminder that serious professionals should not be using such email addresses.

	Ross.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:53:56 -0400

> by an IETF list such as XYZ:

So, it classifies as spam, but it doesn't reject?
So the gmail user isn't being kicked off the list, at this point?

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

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:00:58 -0500

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Plus the fact that "@yahoo.com" and "@gmail.com" (etc.) serve as good
> first-level 'Bozo Filters'.  DMARC serves as yet another reminder that
> serious professionals should not be using such email addresses.
>
[MB] I guess I am a terribly unserious professional. You might consider
that some of us switched to gmail because corporate filters are often
TERRIBLE about periodically blocking email from IETF mailing lists. And,
trying to convince some of those 'Bozos' not to do so is a exercise in
futility.  If you're lucky, they'll provide you with a daily list of some
of the messages they've quarantined and you can then go and retrieve those.
  So, I've had a much better experience since I switched from using
corporate email for professional use to gmail for 'unserious' professional
use.
[/MB]

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:37:03 -0700

Us bozos who've been relying on Gmail for years are humbled and honored to
be in the presence of real professionals like you.  BTW, the presence of "@
gmail.com" is not a reliable criterion for detecting  Gmail use and
implicit bozo-ness. You may have been paying serious attention all these
years to some of the wrong people; how tragic.

---

From: TJ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:40:01 -0400

> corporate email for professional use to gmail for 'unserious' professional

++1 to what Mary said:
Ease of use, general reliability, multiple device support w/o requiring a
VPN/SmartCard/etc.  Huge win to keep personal email (or, even,
"semi-professional") email separate from actual / critical work-related
emails.  I really don't understand classifying all users of those services
as "bozos" ... ?
/TJ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:04:46 +1200

> So, it classifies as spam, but it doesn't reject?

Correct. gmail appears to treat p=reject as p=quarantine,
so the unintended side effect is only a false positive, not
a bounce.

> So the gmail user isn't being kicked off the list, at this point?

That issue would affect the user at example.com (whose domain specifies p=reject)

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:10:27 +1200

> corporate email for professional use to gmail for 'unserious' professional

Exactly. Since I switched to gmail for IETF traffic, I have changed
employers, retired, un-retired and moved countries three times, with
a stable email environment and no need to fight any corporate or ISP
policies. The threat of DMARC hassle is the first real problem I've had.

   Brian

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:48:09 -0400

> policies. The threat of DMARC hassle is the first real problem I've had.

I agree with Brian here. It's great having my IETF email stay in one place
and with my choice of email clients, no matter what else is happening
elsewhere. I've also got my gmail filters well-trained. I have noticed the
occasional DMARC-generated false spam positive, but it hasn't been out of
hand (yet).

>From what I've read elsewhere, Mailman 2.1.18 mitigates the DMARC problem.
The IETF is currently using 2.1.15, so once the powers-that-be upgrade us
to 2.1.18, the problem may be solved.

Cheers,
Andy