IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 14 April 2023 11:31 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 DFB30C151B1A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_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="pH9w3gq0"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="Aj6LPwx1"
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 YXujt58NwZw2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:31:36 -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 6DA98C1516F3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1681471887; bh=cVusXnnWei4jfDn5Ai1//vOxcYzopIhEIsGyXHK4WoM=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=pH9w3gq0DLl+qQ229A19JfY3L9zxNKIiVFSGGJfx9JJ6g6lrW4Tu/jRD+7G4qPp8z fAp4pdqncfFIuLN5SRECQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1681471887; bh=cVusXnnWei4jfDn5Ai1//vOxcYzopIhEIsGyXHK4WoM=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Aj6LPwx1wWxg/7qwqDf4MRxyfajQCTiOcD1lHokRBZSYX8/mXWfwGb1VVEahLOosy bitUPm1FG+iQy4vLWVnD+1hIOsVvY0x0+cxTX/fyOBXqL49AqoSJfvGknRjbbg/dBh pXS2IkCi3ghgv31XO29UANvRlOg5kIZv5FkbyEjSFtAtbkfqaqfM47VMyUFEB
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs
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 00000000005DC0F2.000000006439398F.00007C34; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:31:27 +0200
Message-ID: <b6a2b444-de02-9833-fe7b-fc9ad542f900@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:31:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwZc2X7tyP+_8vvL3Yb7uJk6td3XGbsXUB68BNUEMhV4yQ@mail.gmail.com> <8d970e6b-8fa7-da85-5c47-d485abbc43be@crash.com> <CAL0qLwZJjBq0T8kODJifTT10ttJJE2Bof5kJZACRTwyauzwQ6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYcHeFe0kS9QHz4fP5TbOMOiW8mJaiNYx+Yk8keZYW-yDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYcHeFe0kS9QHz4fP5TbOMOiW8mJaiNYx+Yk8keZYW-yDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2_KQ8b-yuSrvFf4xqCnEw4vA7kg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs
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: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:31:42 -0000

On Thu 13/Apr/2023 17:57:55 +0200 Dotzero wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:45 PM Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In any case, are we really going to start suggesting that list operators 
>>> start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a blocking policy, 
>>> as official guidance? (Now I'm looking ever so forward to catching up on 
>>> these other threads - what the heck are people seeing out there??)


Heck, MLMs should start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a 
blocking policy *when they fail authentication on entry*!!


>> Well, this WG is chartered to come up with some kind of standards track 
>> solution to the problem.  I don't see one in DMARCbis at the moment.  Given 
>> how long this WG has existed so far, that's a fairly glaring omission. 
>> Doesn't seem to me this idea should be off the table just yet...
>
> I don't think it should be off the table but believe it is only one of the 
> options that MLMs/forwarders have.


From: rewriting is the de-facto standard.  In DMARCbis we can only substitute 
"de-facto" with "proposed".  Better methods, implying different, possibly 
experimental, protocols are to be defined in separate documents.

Let me recall that when I proposed something like that, I was told that that 
was phase II and the WG was then already in phase III.  So, let's complete 
DMARCbis /without cannibalizing the spec/ by saying that it MUST NOT be used 
(as it is being used already).

If it will be possible to get back to indirect mail flows, there's more work to 
do there.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email