Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Hector Santos <> Sun, 06 December 2020 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9080C3A0C8F for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:51:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.308
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.308 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, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=lJ75qO7G; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=rXrKQ4mp
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0ZfuylOA5Ad for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:51:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65DBF3A0C8A for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:51:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1418; t=1607226700;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=nGnFfqpOQg0pWMB97ey7YYmfFg7d F+1h+3oSzg8sEqg=; b=lJ75qO7GPK3fiJwDFKI9qxoVvm7wN0sMGNMF90axsbDS mbSBCD0XX4o0TqSlsF+Ca3mnGgRU8r6LMfwwA575+Jlmdps3lVv9wZuFEUI/2wz0 QnuiQp21rFmWchd0EHDeq3+eYpPrjoYH31CPQ+xugHHZP2nnINqvoTWAX8VsBvc=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 22:51:40 -0500
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1; dmarc=pass policy=reject (atps signer);
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 666788696.1.876; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 22:51:40 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1418; t=1607226366; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=nGnFfqp OQg0pWMB97ey7YYmfFg7dF+1h+3oSzg8sEqg=; b=rXrKQ4mpekmTlHx1XfbxUEY AK9OWDurdn4C9ev3dt/u5T3Lf7JoDyh+dEyHXROB1g9vLTEumUgMmIXdMWeV0Pkx V1H34fuMcTTxcwmZahBhXVSr9mO3v0AMBdE08ag+pq+EudgkPnsJjUtq1NBBtVk1 sbWJViZO0HvRkfk7O5w8=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 22:46:06 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 533670908.1.21768; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 22:46:05 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 22:51:44 -0500
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Thomas <>,
References: <20201205220233.18DCA2904B56@ary.qy> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 03:51:49 -0000

On 12/5/2020 5:07 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/5/20 2:02 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> OK, ARC doesn't do that. This does not mean that ARC is broken, only
>> that you appear to have different policy priorities than other people.
>> As you know, DMARC has never obliged recipients to follow senders'
>> policies so this is nothing new.
> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new
> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail. If I
> want you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an
> acceptable place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like
> reject-except-valid-arc.

I have long suggested one way to resolve this is by using a new DMARC 
extended "arc=" switch.  Allow the author domain define what is 
acceptable from an ARC standpoint, if interested.

arc=N   where N is the arc seal count, whatever amount is allow to 
"promote" a failed DKIM to a pass.  The inherent default arc=0 would 
suggest arc should not be a consideration DKIM fails.

In principle, I am for using DMARC extended switches to outline the 
different protocol behaviors.

arc=1  DMARC Receiver MAY consider using arc for failure promotion

atps=1  DMARC MAY consider using RFC6541

rewrite=0 Mailing List SHOULD NOT rewrite 5322.From

Keep it simple folks.

Hector Santos,