IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal: Writing a DMARC usage guide is not a good task for this WG

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.com>
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 A4CDE12EAEB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 a5y4qLZq76Sy for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF441129A9A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id d14so41639072qkb.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oc+qQGbgFcknSjwafrFnwGXdBRU24yzhl/rVUgWz4kw=; b=Bfh7VnBT3GgrB9PPMJucNT3Sb2mC42eE9rKZlXlF6AhQzJjtVFUKCL6Z17yIo5Vszh Wro41Viapv821kCRxjpC0HGMiza7WlLqAM+X0KFnrnCO18KIfdwl15saEQGsRaXwPndt Z61G1vdp//TkLIEEAGXrKdZsL/Oo8TmZ7RivlDRtsYfGfhcyMpqiWtnUJZoT8Az4bme2 xMv3seqWAHyXqnXUvjFLRTKYhYxypD3Cro9Q/4d81vtxbCa6xo0+WhVQa+tYYhCyJRbQ CSJ5FK6wpX4a0HsACKmWMc/nI9X6IVDHcUOfgJ30x6+NwvwyphZEPZWRqMuJjLKqKiS+ ebdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oc+qQGbgFcknSjwafrFnwGXdBRU24yzhl/rVUgWz4kw=; b=lIA4bhMXmFGWTHleJyCIYWep6JYI9stMj5ixnqNj8t01xM+cwRkM3098wvDLgnKbOl bEel8B/DJkWPvCsnY75yRL1vsA6Bq56eLt5vnzbqMGMMLteM+aIt9eAiCf9S8+vLsb6v CO0xt45AIFyBVPQ3NCL3nOMT/1hSbL0ubFTfz+FNrdjF4QlhNmwxl01Oo5WQeR/e3Law BCG+g2ONaafhWx6U/iKv29tsBRepQ/V2esCbmp63fMAfxo/HuTbN4RyDLiG25RQiDFGm 40NkmQcSdny6So21rlOhGRGuqfZF+DTxPZ9N8eIqIYMhI5QsU8JHxwZU88srRMdzuZvE QonQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzf4HJ/1IsfIoHT35uHE8T9VKiUKaLI2qSJZ13cd3e3RPg9vhH2 ei1UEE+my4EEYyk+NJtXD4nDnH3P0kfA
X-Received: by 10.55.33.207 with SMTP id f76mr3226858qki.69.1496337291907; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.42.242 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EC4FAC5E-E5A5-4200-9D98-5F0F7FB2B6B5@fastmail.fm>
References: <CABuGu1pGqnzMPcbbQ=2t-x9DnexEVtqhow-6tPxuLUw4A8s5wA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBFgN=t4DFEnhkNJ4WVy8arvSnnfkWaDp_Rbh6sAVK+UA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYV=mZH9z-Z54iz9n+W2nxNRccN4yaWjOC9_NaMKpjKeA@mail.gmail.com> <EC4FAC5E-E5A5-4200-9D98-5F0F7FB2B6B5@fastmail.fm>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:14:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfN3TT5FvE0uvUwaaxYEqVdmj7taWaUEiFB_o+Cnh24GJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144dcd6bfa3bc0550e92c1f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-MOc8F6cmCq2X0pWqZyT5mW87DY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal: Writing a DMARC usage guide is not a good task for this WG
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 17:14:56 -0000

I believe this is the expired draft being referred to:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 05:23, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with this.  If there's stable documentation on DMARC usage
>> that we can cite, there's little value in adding our own, which is
>> likely to end up diverging from the others.
>>
>> Does anyone think we *should* proceed with writing this?
>>
>
> Hard to say.  Maybe, with development of a DMARC on the standards track.
> But I'd like to see some momentum first in general, and secondly a good
> reason why this has to come from the IETF.  Otherwise, some informative
> text in appendices in either ARC or DMARCbis should suffice, rather than a
> separate document.
>
>
> Is there an expired or not yet posted draft on DMARC usage? I think
> looking at any written text will help inform the decision.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>


-- 

[image: logo for sig file.png]

Bringing Trust to Email

Seth Blank | Head of Product for Open Source and Protocols
seth@valimail.com
+1-415-894-2724 <415-894-2724>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email