Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 05 December 2020 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 434C33A0E91 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:49:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nYR8FRCMUWSo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (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 709BA3A0E90 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id s75so7884676oih.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:49:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kc3BnJaxUlJtCiKTYaVuTyxt1U2tSWt/jrNiN1Pmm34=; b=qmDgz5BJzKhUEYXIr0S/kPyDvsstW+u8r2UKru0BiJxrASQdhOOk1OHYrYWjMTeA/m AFYW4Uf1BcBbmXd0bls5ZUVkWZYCNv3/6jgdU6uMbYl1xXawfmWtzfduNkvGvDKzmoyw LwIWA9ahM/pmaqNr/GDkcHuouQpd5IsQS1LR3AQPivEDyVATEioSw5m+OoUzNMUKEJeu dwVS0o7Ejlp3OJ04zsGscdHVXgDrQ/QO8Y4YYt1ndpTtIj7qtMf7RN45BKogztHWIEQK XpKpg1lB+f/6AAJP1SpxWMtUsSF5ro2XXLvz4Nim11IqVGXqP/MlHi2P6s9fald109iG xQiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kc3BnJaxUlJtCiKTYaVuTyxt1U2tSWt/jrNiN1Pmm34=; b=NEuR76XvXHh4y9flbrpYOosqaeoVeARZ40LJPlGAgmrN9jTEMoaQv4LdTltE03isLs ToymTvaX5IiuajnAFsrw3GP4dAeVzrCipphW7jQ2FA+xKZLxIE8YcobhiswgloA5OeR6 QLHmvmhfj890X6nLyjgiXfAtm89Bf20Snv+PKjhKbdToJpNHskAcDYVWnOHknmhGkHqQ N7kNNcNCHCbWFgElr1AohPJmLgwrHqr0Xp/GXhHo4cwfkJOTylrF3c//XAuGbsGLB3uk iN4Ul3kFJt18PeZMU301luT9KvTfWIT0Ak98Uhe0TlII+5bATQEJZWrAC3w1z0oVF265 DJ1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tAn61pzCMlLkUCX17ev4cMb53UCYII3hpoaoHAhIflhl3N2Y+ tAXmF8BaRUWIPtIKC9DrIIAa/uMpKQXcldbFSjc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4DhV12h58AUjeqXDdIpkwAqicHxhHF9i890IreYlqqB6cgbOw2CrbOM/r53a2bqpIRf7r/Yki2iys0PZ8MqM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c3c6:: with SMTP id t189mr7660818oif.21.1607212171582; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:49:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy> <b437a23a-7e7e-f70d-04dc-49810d002c43@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <b437a23a-7e7e-f70d-04dc-49810d002c43@mtcc.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:49:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G7_fiGkwzinN0o+U_kqKCvEx+MsoGxjzU7+0xL48jfpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090df7505b5c03efa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/69tAMDF1RXEtEyeC80omLKxrH8E>
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: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:49:34 -0000

Michael

I don't see john's comments as ad hominem.  He's describing how his mail
system interprets mail flow.

But I do think a lot of this discussion is getting into very
esoteric cases.
I'd suggest trying to put your thoughts into a draft we can sit and chew on.

Tim


On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com> you write:
> >> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new
> >> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail. If I want
> >> you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an acceptable
> >> place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like
> >> reject-except-valid-arc.
> > Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system
> >
> > a) I don't believe you.
> >
> > 2) I don't care.
> >
> > I think you will find this reaction pretty common.
> >
> > I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I described
> > for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the only way
> > to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC
> > policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even need ARC
> > for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect
> > routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to.
> >
> > You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY mean
> > it, but see 2) above.
> >
>
> Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even
> responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem.
>
> And  your anecdotal evidence drawn from a tiny system is very suspect.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>