IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 12 July 2023 11:04 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 0D4EEC151531 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="Cpy+yU7j"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="AxgGHCuH"
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 r8nb6KVQEp2U for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54441C14CE5E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1689159878; bh=Ak+y3lBWZk9R0Qml4SuzfwU3jw3uEubqiCqNefYuN9k=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Cpy+yU7jLceHItcJdVnQjvzZQQOA8vaFhJPIucgoNysOO829iJjAtb5OyXv9EVoDx Zu3AZvLXLrPU7MsTIB2Ag==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1689159878; bh=Ak+y3lBWZk9R0Qml4SuzfwU3jw3uEubqiCqNefYuN9k=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=AxgGHCuHi5ckXyuhzPHRL8RXgzflyvmbQ9R1ZKfjlJGNmXdga65cC2iOSd8iVt87+ XXH/64NQv0brLKybSFT3lKFmYG21ZUztvVC7O3sbKepTTXnNjaY6vMz9Q2Mjr9jQBx xPjGx1g3PE7nMdxFd9lirvHEbvnOBFMDoVoO0P3lahM6q8QAjFNFJG2EUw10S
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
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 00000000005DC028.0000000064AE88C6.000065D0; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:04:38 +0200
Message-ID: <5f7b5e0a-bd1f-1a09-faa8-4af56bf2cd1b@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:04:38 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJJSxpjmi4PgY27afc0iiMwimRtqj3m2NxKud1Bxb33jxg@mail.gmail.com> <5348fdea-abd2-86a3-1968-44c9ce8f44c4@taugh.com> <458b5863-310b-d6f6-86cd-46d9b77e95b8@baptiste-carvello.net> <2637666.BddDVKsqQX@l5580-debian>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <2637666.BddDVKsqQX@l5580-debian>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/22q7fz5yTQDLxLyatoftkG0-7Xc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:04:56 -0000

On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> ...
>> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
>> the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
>> the need for parsing the reply text…
> 
> This is a very good point.  The IANA Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
> Enhanced Status Codes Registry [1] has codes for SPF and DKIM (RFC 7372) and
> ARC (RFC 8617), but not DMARC.  Adding one is not currently in the DMARCbis
> draft, but I think it should be.


+1; still, having the word "DMARC" in the text greatly simplifies parsing logs.


I noted that Baptiste wrote 5xx, not 5.x.x.  5xx has to be 550 methinks.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email