Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <> Sun, 06 December 2020 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B883A0B16 for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:31:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuHRNbVmE_wF for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D69C3A0B12 for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s21so6581778pfu.13 for <>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:31:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ymVk8mmiK4nBoKdWaAviS46nXD3O/8NG5P2L/wgr+F4=; b=0HUTe5to7KRkCgQ/rmOHoSUVQcySH2VZs8duD2aKYoIZNSTse+fhq2AD0S7n7T2lr0 5iltM4+9mBAH98LFhbd/+sXIoMvxRNgo6lDOznk+sVyqZB/fg+sH58SJNU480qAlA6SZ vUdpJzss+h0Cm0NSRW1pw8f3qSBipYuwli3/XM/Oa1Zz7NbwGNI4SAMnc1pjLde+te+H kNNKywZP0B9qrD/EJCockx54FrHPn8cPr33IufHfQSSEPe858e+t3mtZV4TbV1B8W7m6 IUmLyrs5Bj54HeT4KVIIhoCYvR90r1A8kbC9snNY9+nc9PnzgbeqjBTrUGenwse1haW/ uNUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ymVk8mmiK4nBoKdWaAviS46nXD3O/8NG5P2L/wgr+F4=; b=V5yHgLezFHqUL/C6u/Ah+AF4BN/8cF10d1dqwQWMFxjbNdqbbGFywURW96Q53FhEbr 56zIrN7fbTTe6U+yP6R0N7x47jOL0e9vu0MQx/HDd4DENEDxZu4VhTiv+BzLqqQie33C EF3m/gkzKBCygactv93XwmN+H8T6mGpKEhs+cgWU8GoFzr8nafFJErRse871HHJoLkAB KHgAbUUeKQipSzoslc8tPeiJ6icz2DjLuIiWM5BlpYNhIj9Heyb3bhmCBxy9Uw/U7zRe WQhV2d8wPBXohR4IG6onNh+dKsemakGqboGF7ocfpcqMGTG+SGkI408sncHTNZ17L3MS gRkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532eN/PzFdgDRDkUrSN+uf5J5wHg8+YOJkD2OCVqxyyMjHYbtsu7 uzVusaj0SjeIYy53hFn0r2A2noAX0Hl1oQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw74VKuh9v7IJi07E8l85o8EBjIER2CJHMjAdMAh+KZogCUAEz9Pe/fJs//ny09D+DFZOpdrw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4605:: with SMTP id t5mr13423902pga.244.1607221880427; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y10sm6181817pjm.34.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:31:19 -0800 (PST)
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:31:18 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 02:31:23 -0000

On 12/5/20 6:22 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> A lot of this boils down to what if some entity sends signed valid 
> DMARC aligned mail but somehow doesn't mean it, e.g., an internal 
> policy says no mailing lists but their users participate in lists 
> anyway.  If they can't control their own mail system, it is not anyone 
> else's job to do it for them.
PS: if IETF must assume that people cannot understand our standards and 
their intent, then we might as well shut down. if they cannot understand 
our intent, that is squarely on us, not them. This sort of cynicism is