Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 07 December 2020 10:44 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD51C3A0BBE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 02:44:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LcJlZeOuaU3G for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 02:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF773A12EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 02:44:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607337850; bh=X2FozRElWmf2q7VpgbZaDHTxOMT3KrXGdJw2UsX7A5w=; l=648; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BHtMXH0pRdgI825b83zXaMGvdZMLKEJNC5nwxY6idq40OhVLlZQAQqp+sEjRtcA9y c70wHktgO2t3g4Wvz1lpRTI0WjF8akgd2AvMTtApGB9aLvVx01N9fUy8T5NaVZuAoa NFzqWqw//Nf4joztW+gt1SJbhZvmfYH6+QIkyIbzy+8SFH6jN7+mXzJeqS9CT
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.000000005FCE077A.000042AE; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:44:10 +0100
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com> <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net> <d8dc2644-cbcf-d3a1-c5fb-46fdf5bec819@taugh.com> <CAH48ZfxWWxSh3j3YnA4eD4Y5Ep4GfVDr22WX1MCM4-tcVK0UpQ@mail.gmail.com> <b5774a04-fbee-8d23-d760-0380d58a9fb7@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwZ+KFrPzScr6c-tMOd2nCV=v1Mf71h0fWBUV9_ZZ-k6Cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <b069e7c1-51a8-4550-76a9-c7e78f04c780@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:44:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZ+KFrPzScr6c-tMOd2nCV=v1Mf71h0fWBUV9_ZZ-k6Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-KVTK9tMIi6nCZ4fFj7Cj4ffYjY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:44:24 -0000
On Mon 07/Dec/2020 06:05:29 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > A counter-argument I've heard often to the idea of reversible transformations > is that it can become a spam vector, no different than the argument against > "l=". Compared with the use of "l=" tag (Section 8.2 of [RFC6376]), the fact that footers are written in plain text removes the main security objection about footer additions. Namely, footers cannot completely replace the original content in the end recipient's eyes by exploiting lax HTML parsing in the MUA. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-dmarc-mlm-transform-00#section-6 Best Ale --
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Dave Crocker
- [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject Alessandro Vesely