Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 B3B4512006B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 15:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=gTvhwa7/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=TeLti11t
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 e-xwyKCSPMQB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 15:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 CEBDC120058 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 15:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5207 invoked from network); 23 May 2019 22:52:14 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1453.5ce7241e.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=sdn7dKkHUY9mZ5YZl8Xs33f4acDuvs1PB9HcLiJI38c=; b=gTvhwa7/fEJtdhxGxWyu8Cac7O631HC//8wiRRC0w4MDlI69libwGf1T4/A693VlpJwq9DPxN01GMp8eRDQKYGctUyBk6IA+JykMNRpGY+kW+ATc2AZK2Si+8Cs/GbeZNZgLEwE0mve0OfZyX0KBV9LGxiF3WQVcL0BDrb4aHV2faWLV8hAQXqtDE/1SUA6IuUO/eGKjRaj4BFTfkZbWx8yvT+92zBoXWjJnhAfNIsWP0ojJUPHLHmydFQ62SL3i
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1453.5ce7241e.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=sdn7dKkHUY9mZ5YZl8Xs33f4acDuvs1PB9HcLiJI38c=; b=TeLti11tocQZrCaX8aDKTJGreQZDJ5Vqj4QXfr3BLb3eTkkec5EgdAKMIwGYM/qEuq6sxI7+uXDbbKf0+ywwowcZucfUCPHWRSoWUNbY41CSPqQ51z/U96jWzyL01J8aEgNPKVzZXBOQIjXAXg7eRw0A9ntcHxQFCM7Fz6abDgn6DtdUhrPYK1uL5OGJlfjreFq1OD0XH672CYuxBQJqDQv7CBKfZmMtaImENUTZmWDs2Eg+iEiP8kdv03JMEDCI
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 23 May 2019 22:52:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id C214620147B780; Thu, 23 May 2019 18:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:52:13 -0400
Message-Id: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: fenton@bluepopcorn.net
In-Reply-To: <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1ezTunIN5VWFOoxwaqtlmUamT8U>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 22:52:18 -0000

In article <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net> you write:
>There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage of
>mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are
>domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports.
>I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different documents
>dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a
>separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant"
>that is referenced by both, that would be OK.

Given that we already have one document, I would be very strongly
opposed to this.  It's fine to fix things that are wrong, but trying
to restructure it retroactively will inevitably lead to accidental
incompatibilities.

R's,
John