Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 B51E33A0AA1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:07:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 JXRqpVMc7d5X for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 80CD33A0A96 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id b26so11446394pfi.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:07:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dX7cgQfjhlwSJMnVGhxsOirI0gZgskGdlVMTlPfGr6A=; b=Fy/TDtAbYlcMgJKAVc7MKXkNvOfSdqjGPsHm7AW8va5U6/lA82GIaRjOtCgnQM1R1r B7boyV/HhMoz1i/+1+h5JCPOXIAtHUk6KP/Gk4gviqq4HC/PeaY3OZq2dmVayOo01E+l ljhpMqG2diFwdNiTeAh0GZv4QdIZTD2RvvP42s4+FyDXOx7mBZStwPrixdYOe601mslK sw+Eo9EZSC3DNhVKPWweKNaYKlsgdVW/SNpg6PtmoTVKFqXgWS5uNFxtQsH6eKKBRAsD DBM88gxXB8EbQ3bY8H3AWF5/JEmL0JMEa8xariWpe0sidFWzq6kvPV7trL6Qaqteog9S M9PA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dX7cgQfjhlwSJMnVGhxsOirI0gZgskGdlVMTlPfGr6A=; b=LrfrDLdlpdnk2Oc6oLs5zQf/WMFNDpz/AIIvpLfqiLpLtTG4OeQk2nOtTG1CtiI50w xWyuYZn/fzOaHCXAmyN8eiwh75fzHaJDp6cBBKaHGQa1xzOf/YCNk01xQhMGSK0ontMY gPUz60Qkg2wM+BuZMdc0+MSSzbhJqP77I5n3dl/cBisRu+fZLu5xbOvYQGR1PgBezzii 7a6Jx2AP0zcEmSgFvSBrSDdWh9yBIqdFjSovxTDuW0Q8vXJWwj3QRr1FAd806MXVYtPR 9OAsxSLT9ABhPy1FcYfiicb3mDVZCGzTp6uInIqa3lLBy5BBlMoMtFx5m1E3nCQ0/XTo 5bBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532w+eCrJTI/+CzDB2rQGakAoX2KzufrCj6iVX3/WeSvHrQl0eWB iWPU35QDg3i5DMoiqhgssRv2EEY4DzZawg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBiT7eaQSFBTyonGfZq08HkZg5utm93LXjswbBcjdK5rCsg0oQH7zi2MGsw9+qHh49O/SCXQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7c92:b029:da:d86b:78be with SMTP id y18-20020a1709027c92b02900dad86b78bemr14686922pll.0.1607375241854; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-41-154.volcanocom.com. [107.182.41.154]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e3sm15924730pfe.154.2020.12.07.13.07.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:07:21 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201207191959.6D772292166A@ary.qy> <3ce2c2cc-66ca-c3da-d67d-b45c919aa8fd@mtcc.com> <CADyWQ+G4NHQf6NWrbGgyiwTEBFBo8Dp+oM2g5FqNWBJ4NTd_rg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <ed388ffc-3838-2eb4-9134-66cf3735699f@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:07:19 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+G4NHQf6NWrbGgyiwTEBFBo8Dp+oM2g5FqNWBJ4NTd_rg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------148C1FC621EA4E4AD90FC273"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5mbas324hfmqbVrerqC5MVsvQqg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:07:26 -0000

On 12/7/20 1:00 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     This is why we need actual numbers instead of anecdotes about the
>     long
>     tail. We know that there is no silver bullet. Mailing lists who are
>     configured in a way that causes their traffic to not get delivered
>     can
>     be configured in a way that will. It's not our problem.
>
>
> Are you talking about integrating ARC?  Then you are correct, operational
> data. This is why until that happens, we're not talking about adding 
> ARC into
> the DMARC flow, and it's why the ARC work is Out Of Scope in this WG.
>
>

Do you mean that it is out of scope wrt DMARC? I can understand that 
since it's an experiment. It would probably be best documented in the 
context of ARC itself and dealt with if it ever becomes standards track. 
In the mean time, reject should mean reject.

As it turns out, rfc 7489 does seem to document the issue though.

Mike