IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net> Tue, 04 June 2019 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@eudaemon.net>
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 3F8D81200CD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eudaemon.net
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 BJFsVFVbUWFj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc33.google.com (mail-yw1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (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 0A005120059 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 23:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id s5so8567457ywd.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eudaemon.net; s=dkey; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=s7u7hd3qn6RnVlfY2Rr9dC8+UEcTA3hDrSMKiGSkukI=; b=HaQIcl+z5NpB7OLlgS3OgS3CI2AkQQJyVGiwz80c0yGLZgoEvEYzzKow926fPLtMNN AMBf76csxim9aDSM0xwBLTxJ1JtP3AqYAVRliji3/mh5+3ijJwbBq/GFLdSNjQ+dsbzo 7ydeFXok2PvXxcnkk9QnDnqLa47kBo1XVlS/k=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=s7u7hd3qn6RnVlfY2Rr9dC8+UEcTA3hDrSMKiGSkukI=; b=ZZlCFpMhpta6NJua3dG+S99ZnltiAlmoMizIIqv+8nQaWXLT2uGugFeEIUgqh7cctz nBSR4xkXMIVTKsZk1Zx5FMavmQSZBMJiFBhO2u198q651tICoyn8VH+XijYYSjj9+DHv Yvh/IRW8C3uHW3BZtaR+CLll8FsnWIx6NvZrsDpedNPD8kLp282YhqIuKpA4VB4TVDF8 pUht01+7st7zpgJvlAjKLA6tpsrqYRVcAw6b9JqVG9LsMpXALNwCaDQ8bLPGj6+4D/lb eTKVRHWJPlUKOA0C4kxTqEcVWT7ukHnnavGqiSsM1UC2RnQYS87espzP7SvQUdlBf2sr cf7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwvlXMKzau9NKHt9IO8tu0Wsp4I/18kKiGJR86jO1FPubK5Jvp /tWllyJLk/17X0I9eWbBl44yaQuKcwQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyTxc5qLrclozTSOw0ipqmgTRG40k/ucwTMOXEOcuZXe5hl/BRgv4eT5Qdw5NPAZRvXQp2jJQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:3d86:: with SMTP id k128mr15598668ywa.466.1559631014822; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] ([68.235.242.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k64sm55813ywf.37.2019.06.03.23.50.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C3ED2918-AD14-4591-AED1-3A6A5AA882FE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 02:50:12 -0400
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905241036450.50141@ary.qy> <c767e477-b6f8-b719-1c9d-3ed5bfddb4d7@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905291308180.71513@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwbW2a61v4PHR0Sjm1hc1sBUS2nASsrq8Q_OSV8G+3U3dA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbW2a61v4PHR0Sjm1hc1sBUS2nASsrq8Q_OSV8G+3U3dA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E8952AF1-BA3D-4A75-A1C9-439EA160F23F@eudaemon.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3cn0d2wTwlGmc-RRXdRY8jTmaG0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 06:50:18 -0000

> On May 30, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:13 AM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com <mailto:johnl@taugh.com>> wrote:
> As far as I can tell your proposal to break the document in two has 
> gotten no support at all.  Can we stop now?
> 
> What's on topic for the group and what isn't is the purview of the co-chairs and the charter.  Let's please not stifle discussions before they die on their own absent chair action to the contrary.

FWIW, one reason why the document lists the XML today is to emphasize the importance of this reporting piece.

A few people are fond of saying: email receivers can do whatever the heck they want with their email. Part of DMARC's "social contract" between domain owners and email receivers is to allow email receivers to implement DMARC's policy model "safely" by means of telling domain owners via reporting what the email receivers are doing.

In other words, the model works as email receivers can push support burden back to domain owners *if* aggregate reporting is in place. As simple as it might sound, keeping the XML parts in the 'core' document is (was?) supposed to make it very clear what parts should be considered required.

-= Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email