[170911] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: responding to DMARC breakage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miles Fidelman)
Sat Apr 12 13:13:52 2014
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:10:42 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
CC: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUxo3ZoOVLL9U+RfJNcdHH_T2i-cmyLT6cjOP_nY5CwDw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Miles Fidelman
> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> 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, incompetence, lack of resources, laziness, or active intent
>> (criminal or not)?
> 1. Treat DMARC records which break mailing lists as malformed.
>
> 2. Treat messages with malformed DMARC records as a validation failure
> and act as directed for validation failures.
>
> -Bill
>
>
Doesn't really help if someone upstream is publishing the records, and
its someone downstream who's acting on them.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
