Re: Mailing lists - assumptions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-822 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:26 PM
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Mailing lists - assumptions
> 
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:55:37PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > On 4/18/14 2:20 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >We need to answer the question, explicitly, about whether or not the
> > >sites which are currently honoring the DMARC p=reject policy can be
> > >assumed to adopt whatever we come up with.
> >
> > There may be sending sites that do *not* want their mail redistributed
> > through mailing lists, or at least don't want their mail redistributed
> > through mailing lists that don't support whatever the nifty new
> > mechanism is. They'll want to say, "If you didn't get it directly from
> > me, it went someplace it wasn't supposed to go." As goofy as I think
> > that is, I am perfectly OK with the semantics of "p=reject" staying
> > the same for those sites, and for receivers to honor "p=reject" by
> > bouncing that email.
> >
> 
> So you're OK with mailing list administrators telling yahoo.com users, if you
> want to continue participating on this mailing list, you'll have to change e-mail
> providers?
> 
> There has already been one DMARC cheerleader saying he would stop
> supporting to non-profit organizations who would do that, so that's putting
> the mailing list administrators of non-profit organizations in an impossible
> situation.
> 

Ted, you really do seem to have a propensity for putting words in other people's mouths. The assertion made was to send a NASTY email to the list participants, not simply a polite email explaining that there is a problem and one or more possible remedies. The latter is a reasonable method of explaining a situation not caused by the list operator itself. The former is attempting to coerce the list user into a campaign to force Yahoo to change its practices (which was what was explicitly stated). 

There is a distinct difference between the two approaches. If an organization I support, whether they do it knowingly or because the person or organization that manages their mailing lists decides to make such a decision (without advising management) to send me a nasty email intended to coerce me to do anything (doesn't have to be just about switching mailbox providers), of course I am going to withdraw support. I would fully expect others to feel along the lines I do. To be blunt, people (end users) don't particularly care about your impossible situation as a list administrator. It is your job to figure out the least intrusive way of dealing with the situation and of course, to communicate with the impacted users politely and where possible providing them options. This is not specific to 
 the Yahoo DMARC implementation issue, that is the real world. You are focused on solving your problem (and crusade) and not necessarily theirs.

> Those of us who are in that situation will need some forum to discuss what's
> the least disruptive way to the Internet mail architecture to address our
> needs.  If that's not [email protected], that's fine, but this _is_ a real life
> problem that is not going away.  25% of the governing board of my church are
> yahoo.com users.  I'm not sure I can tell them all that they have to switch to
> gmail.com.
> 
>      	      	   	     	       - Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-822 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822

_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822