Re: responding to DMARC breakage

Matthew Petach wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Miles Fidelman mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net>> wrote: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: It occurs to me that Yahoo's d

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: >> >> It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the >>> choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a >>

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Question: > > Years ago Yahoo! bought major mailing list provider egroups formerly > onelist, eventually absorbing it into yahoo clubs and making something > called yahoogroups. > > Does this break yahoogroups too? How are THEY handling it? I

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

Question: Years ago Yahoo! bought major mailing list provider egroups formerly onelist, eventually absorbing it into yahoo clubs and making something called yahoogroups. Does this break yahoogroups too? How are THEY handling it? --

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > - Yahoo (operationally) and the DMARC authors are intentionally > un-responsive (as are hotmail, comcast, a few others; gmail, I note is not > bouncing mail) > > How do we respond as operators, beyond late-night, ad-hoc patches to list > sof

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

Dave Crocker wrote: On 4/12/2014 2:38 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: someone needs to get a legal opinion wrt the DMARC group's effort to have all mailinglists change their From: address. "The DMARC group" (presumably referring to the dmar

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 4/12/2014 2:38 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Miles Fidelman >> wrote: >> someone needs to get a legal opinion wrt >> the DMARC group's effort to have all mailinglists change their From: >> address. > >

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On 4/12/2014 2:38 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: someone needs to get a legal opinion wrt the DMARC group's effort to have all mailinglists change their From: address. "The DMARC group" (presumably referring to the dmarc.org informal conso

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: >> >>> It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the >>> choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a >>>

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a situation not unlike a really routing table or nameserver, snafu --- It's

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: What kind of responses are available? In the broader scope of things, what kinds of responses are typical if someone publishes corrupted information and then doesn't cooperate in fixing the situation - be that throug

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:12:09 -0400, Miles Fidelman said: > It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the > choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a > situation not unlike a really routing table or nameserver, snafu --- It's more like a peering war. T

Re: responding to DMARC breakage

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > What kind of responses are available? In the broader scope of things, what > kinds of responses are typical if someone publishes corrupted information > and then doesn't cooperate in fixing the situation - be that through > obliviousness,

responding to DMARC breakage

Hi Folks, It occurs to me that Yahoo's deployment of DMARC p=reject, and the choice of several big mail operators to honor that, has created a situation not unlike a really routing table or nameserver, snafu --- someone's published information that's caused lots of things to break. At an ope