IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Jesse Thompson <zjt@fastmail.com> Fri, 28 April 2023 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <zjt@fastmail.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 0EB74C151B0D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b="ZMBEWMy4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="WKvBGj0n"
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 10VuEfsvdXHN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC033C151551 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5097F3200986 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:50:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap42 ([10.202.2.92]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:50:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1682650225; x=1682736625; bh=el gI9JWOUxnicak2hwIO2jDsji8TsEyjns9jWBNMoBc=; b=ZMBEWMy4UYa6YFCueh ucaNFtAjXFApFFaC2rQy/r8mxWUYJ7OWit4EWN8r8oTLObfQH09yAko/Tapc6PCZ rfZ7VqrFHNO4uxEqgt1DVzrImGW+X9g2cdDZjuFt6siqb2ev+OJ1Oj1DoUzbzQ3Y aVWMtVlBKyE+PBAjSVkjxtKboYAD+hnn5Kit7Z5WHZeHH30ZS7I425m2cJIwAryV KwWTrvxuR2N3F8B47GWAsROHV1OhXDKi7cBs/vk7mgqYvJnZ/vYXf30kaC3jbwnp yRtV7GtRw+uk/kHkPV4OaKA7euYN4MJdexuDgQ6OAEBFtdPlJo0h00bOkCtUi8ap U8/w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1682650225; x=1682736625; bh=elgI9JWOUxnic ak2hwIO2jDsji8TsEyjns9jWBNMoBc=; b=WKvBGj0nvYTQrYVVTv3cPf6vuiEXm kwGB29CS9JAfIkd/G47XEs33ECv9UrMhoBaRoOHLnDZwDYDlLrlhYububHQXYEil eN9W7YnFGfWTQqz8huQh8K+HAoxm4hcOIlWaW58AzroOJ3YtZ8OIklKH6Ecw2Zh0 o5g8oGXa5grJ36zScjeMD6RGIVtCoV2+dfoO5IXPB+T9KoKO/KdZH5bSaBAr+HM+ EEHUGVRSuPdHtI4sO8fTR8+d7/v0RFrSc/zEbhYHTl+3ucG4gjpd5S5+WhsbBkWi F/yzhM1PMlV3F7FUAj836HCI4Ig/eBYhjcXwObbWvgspyPZdXjYefa6ng==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:cTRLZFuEix1welUJC1n6qzJZW2RP9Agos58uUvy0wsLhGm0VrmQJ-A> <xme:cTRLZOc4KyNY1Gb5x-LTSi9RH6XKPHNsHAt27U3mO2UuMAwaUAEDoO5Y52SnLbl9B Fby8nXh-jzx1MfZFco>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfedujedgieeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedflfgvshhsvgcuvfhhohhmphhsohhnfdcuoeiijhhtsehf rghsthhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeeulefhfedtheeguedvud evkeduveelffevueehuddutdduhfejfeegleffieegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepiihjthesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:cTRLZIwc24xLKWKB0YcjpAeZxR1PKhi9jfdZfOEOnbWnlHAtyiARmA> <xmx:cTRLZMNb5NI50ATEfvHbYH318uDAXmOCADCMwOrKZTYqTGSgojNX-w> <xmx:cTRLZF8ItOOx7qIHzskY5RYuldrl5_qm3YIM1MtM4bU6hbUq9UF1Jw> <xmx:cTRLZIL_p6gulMS4Z_NsolV-y_Ulr2L6eWTubVdmRhEXCGEf1yFcAQ>
Feedback-ID: i1a614672:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id AF9BBBC0078; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-374-g72c94f7a42-fm-20230417.001-g72c94f7a
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <e40a5fcf-ba0a-45ef-85eb-2ce063004cba@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <479b6be4-c080-4826-9384-1bd02ce78e3f@app.fastmail.com>
References: <20230426160609.8532BC586620@ary.qy> <B08C7AD1-B14B-43FC-BE85-DFBD5282A8DB@bluepopcorn.net> <BF125E76-EAEF-468B-93F2-3318736F932F@kitterman.com> <MN2PR11MB43511D3478D3682AABD35969F76A9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0db5e3fd-68cf-22ad-7c63-e1c1d5debe14@tana.it> <479b6be4-c080-4826-9384-1bd02ce78e3f@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:49:48 -0500
From: Jesse Thompson <zjt@fastmail.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="667b54f96e944e64bf064cdb04dff2cc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2bC74RFkotcjJE7lke_9SCGg8Nc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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, 28 Apr 2023 02:50:32 -0000

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H t=y.
> 
> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by section A.7

Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.

This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection. 

A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:

   Operational experience showed ...
   ... header rewriting by an
   intermediary meant that a Domain Owner's aggregate reports could
   reveal to the Domain Owner how much of its traffic was routing
   through intermediaries that don't rewrite the RFC5322.From header

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email