IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 5AA913A0E25 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 eQGGWyEZGyIX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D8B3A0E23 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id n2so2905717oij.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M2lVA7BZu75dfEWVeap/Pl4QMR3f7LzcVd9MdyNRn2c=; b=AfRLJ+V1ZWRNvG5DXmEXFRqoURYn3p38cXPyHMea6XMJyg7FxY/5Jfh6k1fr9AkTYA T+fi6rTFTLWyVWMFv1eA35ZtaF+pPy9jX+/RY28m9cumdKyHyMqvSJHzATkVKaU0pLMO JtMCm2o3lV3NxdcVvUk+xGQN1E4Vgfyt/7HuzmC7GUMXy4MTvUKVWXiFUPAqhdaGzZUa 7QGwbqdmZtYWrag4T2Ehw3hvRoUnOjnw6h+leZf3pADpm6P22H7uw3pv9BdP4knuevB/ 1PSBY7Pomt7r0E2a/Jzito1xRbBMfacaGDvW06pvldGCSAoAKuRjdTgutiP53EqNLjXS C8Bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M2lVA7BZu75dfEWVeap/Pl4QMR3f7LzcVd9MdyNRn2c=; b=SqryMzOpeMsHhhtr0OgBiKm8CIR4aXmWrzPTKXjNFf9wFGsBYuXr903kTMRsD/W2/T iKX1JmA17Uivgnw3myXMYyLnzHiCtq7Vr8q+DT1X0Ybs8kSZBsSMrxxFisP5K+oAVmIs BNGSFQxKSc7ZguPUey9mETW79fehj3WBXmrOlmcaUBLJHoAj5+Im88E/iDP+ADJQ4ihk B8ALV90sGIwLcqY18Fuo/9pB8hW00oNd1C+Pg4Aj2kyIDe0T7yrf8nJVyw/18HrXsf6F p2BZrsxW+DQ8oqhSclzmYC9Lg4JO/XQexd8hcNytLf7DgkBcxxlCFadA9ssN0SyYs9cY Hnfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PglbmXtkHoHSuTXiOOf4tqYmXFSvDp1Q2k6mqoW7AXhgco8Fm cNnb36GwuMfBztfPBfpIPuhLJ+bM2vThkWXxpW3zNyaQeho=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKE2Pz7sBkNmapdiUnoHd4kRbhpUGoPOTHf+k0kmcrRrXPv6bQpxGz6ndhrXt+f3Kml0TnM99j/+zN6mALaTs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f05:: with SMTP id 5mr282139oip.173.1601042476454; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200815225306.967CC1E9E41D@ary.local> <c1679087-6c6e-7147-fea5-b4513f2c060c@bluepopcorn.net> <5F43576A.4050905@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <5F43576A.4050905@isdg.net>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:01:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+EM400Zk-xM_JBhFY1QppOyCrxt7e0XHxpjhQ_LjG6xgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: hsantos@isdg.net
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001458cb05b023c0d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3-c88Rb0TrW7MMT6wu2NypcTReM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:01:19 -0000

All

This call for adoption ended a few weeks ago, I have been recalcitrant in
following up.   The chairs feel
there is enough consensus to adopt this work in DMARC.   While there were
issues raised, the chairs feel
they can be addressed through the document process.

thanks
tim


On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:00 AM Hector Santos <hsantos=
40isdg.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On 8/21/2020 3:09 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> > On 8/15/20 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >> Assurances that are provided by ADSP are generally obtained out of band
> in the
> >> real Internet, and not through ADSP.  Current deployment of ADSP is not
> >> recommended.
>
> > Is that not exactly the same situation with DMARC, except that the
> > policy in question now is "reject" rather than "discardable"? Yes,
> > it's just a keyword, but it reflects the semantics of the expected
> > action as well.
> >
> > -Jim
>
> No one was expected to follow a reject, so it was said, until it did
> happen.  SPF pushed
>
> --
> Hector Santos,
> https://secure.santronics.com
> https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email