IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A-R results for DMARC

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 10 December 2020 08:34 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 1D1C93A0AD3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:34:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 LnXwKEzeU871 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035703A0ACB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:34:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607589256; bh=yHT98PRu1AFXL+RCY3F98qZjkpyQ4IesE5EafLDMuJo=; l=1658; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AqBg7J8aAoMkEGl6jroEqPi3JveCnUIyRpOa0KwdGw2FOQC+a57H7iJBngyJGSxVH yAFuy8zCTvhP1saB0/1RBeQPF2P+yHxoC7PrIzIBU01o50WJpyvwY3Xtn1+oy9GvZL q5h+xXtmXdTJ7poDSORFrmkVtlpLJeYp2G2jpNXDDCoHzMilXrc5qOhcJ6lnT
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: 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 00000000005DC053.000000005FD1DD88.00001069; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:34:15 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201208031609.C8CC52926414@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwYmweiS_bX85L4=ipXXR+AnJo9EX4NnXMAzi6HmfMir5A@mail.gmail.com> <b8d63e53-d7fe-73f1-859e-88136ebe8564@taugh.com> <CABa8R6uKcEkh7id-TM-DwfGT6iBA5sdCEDzudhjDLKA1BSSCbw@mail.gmail.com> <a581e19d-76c1-ab10-7daf-1808323a3023@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6sy9wyv+2OkKjF2U9QBf6jZDP+mBEWtRuDHWtnuJO4MJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <970e808e-f8b3-474c-79f1-b275f23d2eeb@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:34:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6sy9wyv+2OkKjF2U9QBf6jZDP+mBEWtRuDHWtnuJO4MJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3HQbm1Niqc7c3t8JvBepRiWtL08>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A-R results for DMARC
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:34:22 -0000

On Thu 10/Dec/2020 00:37:19 +0100 Brandon Long wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:27 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/8/20 4:51 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:31 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>> The original intent back in RFC 5451 was to relay only those details
>>>> that an MUA might care about, such as the DKIM result (so you can
>>>> display something representing a "pass" or "fail" on a message) and
>>>> maybe the domain name found in a passing signature (an early shot at
>>>> caring about alignment when rendering a message). ... >>>
>>> I suppose but 5451 also says it might be useful to message filters.
>>
>> Right, there are clearly MUAs that do some amount of spam filtering, so 
>> disposition of p=quarantine would seem to be useful for that. >>
>> Is there any evidence for that though? I would assume that the folks on 
>> this list use a diverse set of MUA's and would be in a position to tell
>> us if some of them do. >
> Gmail does put messages with disposition quarantine into the spam label, but
> we don't rely on the A-R header to pass that information from the smtp 
> transaction to the mailbox.

As an SMTP filter, zdkimfilter can reject, but it cannot quarantine.  That is 
MDA's territory.  It passes quarantine information in an A-R comment[*].  If 
there was a standard way to convey that info, it could be used by MUAs as well 
as by any other software not specifically designed around zdkimfilter's 
idiosyncrasies.


Best
Ale
-- 

[*] https://www.tana.it/sw/zdkimfilter/zdkimfilter.html#dmarcand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email