IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Fri, 31 March 2023 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 847CAC15C28D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.com
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 Z5Us6NRDpqG5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92a.google.com (mail-ua1-x92a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3E04C15C287 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92a.google.com with SMTP id x33so16299689uaf.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680274160; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=d/OY/ktZdS+vnG8qbnBLF6BRxAZshsKgsLhuVIJgJb4=; b=UPVhffKhefjhdnAHwt4aKvBU0FCH3unfgLSu5xpT/4nUjT083FynCB0C8ah6cwKTQC SBRaJZ4jUlN/NukirQ8glzUtioaFVrGY6U/s5xJ3E3hB2o8KNOLQCTWiUO/PuDEeaKeR 9ajcLG4tCNENT69j7SNN0QpVmyvOYjgqNpiAmi4NCn+CXHKJPNuvBGcHA6UY9zniEZDU eU2C+UHi4OfV5W2W1tpM01dPQbcKcTU5bYNku7RKeTwoyVEsk1Zf6dwOklYS1ZlA4tUX GtoTnIDPp5EuSbmQCd/+wlzwe3HGHyw/V5QeyojlAMl6JjKRxDCRG6L+UFS//ij+7nmp MLEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680274160; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=d/OY/ktZdS+vnG8qbnBLF6BRxAZshsKgsLhuVIJgJb4=; b=RHnWu6poJoF7GnviRGYEimM81KSJBJ19HDdPBvHHgd6LWk+JnmPTdMsY2BnEA+0lUH y4P07TXFj+DGxh2EW0XBmPrmQ24rltj+eorxpwDBJonpghnuYlnayt8OMF0Ibx6Unc4H Pt11Xb266BAgFQSUl8mojnVdk3AEX6Vuig5VHFiGD8K/7isEEf1TRjJMW4BZb34Hak2i YBm8mlbv17AOMWAHZB0OSFTqcfN1sFIFTeDvZiUSxY3NxdElyfulTTLPhkOzxttFleM+ IH43thhqoz3YsZuigpvE/F1rYGRbH7fAxrfze4j8GMpHL54y+ivbvxqjFnKpbR2VTBXm 5kRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dm3JNfBRZfgdUxVaVM2vyWtitP7TrPALXMmQI+uUzuxSXlA7M+ ERjwyMP7iZov7WlvrgjNwtNWMzZm2JHeK6gyn+J6dwVp+zI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZNZlVNHQJ/55SnaE+4oROs5p4Rz1ynlgPZOoZeZXjwBpgLpFaMKFwGyFJ67Gfi/fHCoQurOyV/lQBhOMzQCMM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6130:226:b0:764:72bd:aebf with SMTP id s38-20020a056130022600b0076472bdaebfmr21547927uac.1.1680274159733; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <6319292.vCqnBZbX7o@localhost> <CAHej_8nd1xyAgwASLJbuJHyXEAfHbjqxNH1XtJxKFyfyOneyug@mail.gmail.com> <13145172.pEV04Z3DvM@localhost> <CAHej_8msLJQ0vbZ2jzitjxrQ1wdim5bHJkiD-QrU5F0EJvQp0g@mail.gmail.com> <FCFEB95E-63F9-46C3-A5F4-FA6B02FA8EB5@episteme.net> <CAHej_8=GbmzyXaeEkyLkv6uKc0-owuMC6UspPNq9irT7nF8b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLmRyyBLE7ZKy88XUS_hXr9M2uwc8jOCYBrBPeC+pCdCg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43519A6CD95E5C80AA1EC2CFF7899@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <13603D87-4FDE-4768-9712-E6DB0818C802@kitterman.com> <CAH48ZfztW4OFm+ZMV=et7+uczj49dfbYT7i0w4LgU7pswuiEnw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwayTG_M1-fSTXiaVM5TS1Vo7X+Ehov2Bov9vCak7gn=yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfxejSxbsDpgBUcfMDhGcz0QLGZEH6yVRMC0xmEFLksw3w@mail.gmail.com> <06B6084E-A0C2-4E36-8B3A-EC2DFDD9D67B@episteme.net> <CAH48ZfzdZP0Gb+k_cBERWwgrJODL_GNER4ZOYxDfOS9iH8Twvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaGe3kSdqNU8ZVuapS1kKrhLABvD++B0+0+_ogNuj8=zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfyacA4HURVqFsHvLxmGvOniDKN3Sem_XOcbxbEKF-CiZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfyacA4HURVqFsHvLxmGvOniDKN3Sem_XOcbxbEKF-CiZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:49:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYe3=oTYB1vP4hHJmH+=M3wEMvy_3_Avm0hfb0QBvDmWKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006a8e9505f8335084"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3qut0M11f65j1EuqK-q1lKwZk_A>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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, 31 Mar 2023 14:49:24 -0000

Douglas Foster wrote " My point was to only restate that "signed" is the
only truth that the DMARC policy can assert."

This is not true. If a sending domain provides a p=reject policy assertion
in their DMARC record, that is truth. They are not saying that fail always
means fraud. They are saying that mail which fails to pass either SPF or
DKIM is requested to be rejected (for whatever reason). Why do people keep
on trying to overload their personal interpretations on top of something
very simple and straight forward?

Michael Hammer

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:22 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:

> My point was to only restate that "signed" is the only truth that the
> DMARC policy can assert.    The new prose needs to fix the false certainty
> that the old prose created.   But until this week, the group seemed ready
> to repeat the same mistake and use language which perpetuates the myth that
> FAIL always means fraud.   Maybe, but not certainly.   The difference is
> important.
>
> DF
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 8:46 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:51 PM Douglas Foster <
>> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be happy with p=signed, because that is what p=reject means, and
>>> it is our job is to ensure that people interpret the signal correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Quoting the charter:
>>
>> "The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the
>> installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification for any
>> non-interoperability."
>>
>> Changing one of the valid "p=" values seems to me to be the opposite of
>> "preserve interoperability with the installed base", so the bar is high to
>> make this change.
>>
>> Can the problem you're trying to address be handled in any other way?
>> Say, improved informational prose?
>>
>> -MSK, participating
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email