Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 07 December 2020 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A333A1286 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 01:35:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V515JKb8f79X for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 01:35:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26033A1285 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 01:35:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1607333726; bh=g3tLjsHCOfY6FOuSoZQdzlup7oRp1Z+aqlWVkyk4JnA=; l=1556; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AKZKE/68ujHZQG/kb+rl2lTjXpHtK+BAMoVMqFNxNG12QYholowZS6Py/lr8N+jJv H7gmyrFplE0tRsjo/9s/8hUDdI9AYFbYbTknxcHt/Ad1i/mGDAEVvtGNFrCEI7LloC /0nYNQ2MTT1pa4Aij1cW77zvFNuRL/GXY4r1mBxik4uelnYZeDHRQ6Vz+j1f1
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC056.000000005FCDF75E.00003A98; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:35:26 +0100
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:35:26 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:35:32 -0000

On Sun 06/Dec/2020 19:47:24 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 10:31 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sun 06/Dec/2020 18:01:04 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> This actually highlights why my observation is correct. If the intermediary 
>>> showed how to reverse their changes perfectly to be able to validate the 
>>> original signature, it says nothing about whether those changes to be 
>>> delivered to the recipient are acceptable to the originating domain. for the 
>>> case of a bank sending me sensitive mail, the answer is that it is never ok. 
>>> for somebody working on internet standards working on ietf lists, the answer 
>>> is that it is fine. hence trying to get two states of the one "reject" is 
>>> insufficient.
>> For MLM transformations, this choice can be done by tuning DKIM signatures.  
>> A bank can choose to sign Sender: field (or lack thereof), or any other 
>> fields that a MLM has to change, and possibly use simple canonicalization.  
>> In that conditions, transformation reversion won't work.  It isn't a distinct 
>> DMARC state, formally. Yet, tuning DKIM signatures allows to harden or weaken 
>> the given DMARC state.
> It seems a lot simpler for the originating domain to just be explicit about how 
> they feel about transformations by intermediaries. It's not like another short 
> ascii string is going to break the bank.

A stated policy is certainly more explicit about the intent.  However, it is 
subject to receivers interpretation and I-dont-care syndrome.