[dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com> Thu, 29 February 2024 18:55 UTC
Return-Path: <todd.herr@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 52059C180B69 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:55:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id soewAIlRedpd for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2FC2C180B67 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dcc80d6006aso1392771276.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:55:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; t=1709232913; x=1709837713; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=X+L+RDzNpz8BL2HL+fzWqPjbye6FE2KSPrDxy3GWry0=; b=TLengxINP11nABJfVpn/V7VnO7iQ+Bk5mzDsToKrjiuKgSd+yKhvNff0Zn7AQ9kjSv vWwwgYQwudD59A0EAr8WA5zA9QY1l4B0oX0LI+zaMborhCd8c4Ayooka0PjaDAjEq9+q SnHwusZ1XAah2qs72Tr/l4VW+hlvw9rbHmV3fs5OwUCCcuMOZ9dX0GnhYAEgCy0FeTH6 tnghkajYg1wKcl7N62ojiIT9ixDhMrUyhaOk9LAT3m60zpwyfiVS5MuvEwVTrfGo3hDY 1cT7WfOPVI1PkyTCWpMsXOrZ3KNJr/ppqJMlI8VaP0cDzFzLmkmvQaWNWBGVV1Zr1EAF mMug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709232913; x=1709837713; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=X+L+RDzNpz8BL2HL+fzWqPjbye6FE2KSPrDxy3GWry0=; b=K7x2HSvSVG+Jl4WkKZuxvpiaoM2F6fIsFIuyjYyaG6mo60nQ90gzZvx3iEEMcbog8I pGGP6cp7+FXqvuEswwMnByPOABD0Si9DQgGGAzvWvrPtk2BCAy3XzFOabeZX2ZUKU5Jf F73CsXrKh33vvvVgMPn6+OTjKOYVOdcE5S8XxYJoQpiSDCE3vRfWT63jCdAIGi1n9wls k0Zszn3LQ5t61kNCXPZmy9kAjsZKisv0zsnUPNrmw0WbY7K5SCbNiU2ot92geKnNaBN3 KMLzWfoTVZ4znyuGuLK4caq5FtjHb42DNX0BrahZiBedSBf92TuLjXkrWV6rOAWH3rnB y4ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxIW/9Y9seGDtskBu2cNmLcALT8CeVw2a94Ps1XLMUTghnsC3G/ ZrteEoCkB0gPDO4JCgMnboGJwr9e98gKAIOHjU00Nh7oxF9H21TmG1idyAnjm0SPHgDm2UN6vFU 4UbY5qITuseb8zwcv2QEdiC3OkFWNkawrqTBYFIyY7IckqVSKpMA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG0kLtfdE8vteqrBd1b5UhD+SNvSzHKPsN8MUdb7tIiJ2FQVfhawcwzJcCamu4Sv3Km6ofAorj/I7pw0QND7Eg=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1f54:0:b0:dbd:4c4d:240d with SMTP id f81-20020a251f54000000b00dbd4c4d240dmr2797174ybf.59.1709232913561; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:55:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:54:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHej_8k_6CWH=iOFCwYr02eAnGsXRtb+cuAffPMEBS87RONgeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6ce06061289cc78"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-ZIvXDT2JiUoYfgH3O8Ea_vibGE>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 29 Feb 2024 18:55:18 -0000
Colleagues, I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the first set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes beyond minor, so wanted to get a sanity check. Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following sentence: In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6, Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic (e.g., "It is therefore critical that domains that host users who might post messages to mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject") Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject", yes? -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem *e:* todd.herr@valimail.com *p:* 703-220-4153 *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Neil Anuskiewicz