IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 18 April 2023 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 2DC19C14CEFA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="hW21RmiZ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="azcB0Htu"
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 DpvsmBRlBarb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3FA4C14CF09 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2ECF80206; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1681858828; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=xqKgsaOox3HHxqrEqTcfY1l3/06mwc0H0Upjh6xbM2Y=; b=hW21RmiZmgMKiQn3iLNTJVBeZt3aOZn5xEMRj2iuf6Jt1KtjAdbuZ9B9PTJd0AhjSOd0R pDDw6UevXyjwWGgBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1681858828; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=xqKgsaOox3HHxqrEqTcfY1l3/06mwc0H0Upjh6xbM2Y=; b=azcB0HtuymRSXlzwIHsHAsIUpgVlhkybSmWP4eMFCs+xQokkrJDnPb/+mvec80vFLSyaw V9TXeyzK5V4Bg0N5HGCsGGFXZGulXBueYs0By9Cfh0a5ZvxUkqo+CpD6jvrrNW3tDqURd+P BvqPZ5+sq7NGbGwJjDFcYDBRpSEZB6Zczb3/CaUPiosFwj/6gkvgDWJMSyW0S5z5a9kUnFb l1qIlSnLou7038n3dOdJ93HnEADK4Bc8jNQ08h/kChqs8q7pIoiLm6+RY/DBTFrTc5TPchT lw9V2RAPn++p7spY5sNGKLHNy9llU97G60/dIrBpFVm62N96e8qHWN7TsC9g==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B32DFF8009F; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 23:00:25 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <65C7C985-DC0C-4A10-9348-F149143F67DA@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <20230409005207.DCA8BBD1CC17@ary.qy> <4a0dba74-3e25-b9cb-dd64-20bf04ae76ba@tekmarc.com> <7b599a98-922a-44db-af91-2f8aa0f74181@app.fastmail.com> <CALaySJJQ-Mh+=EsmA7QatrcCbCSSTGHt6fRGWequ+KCH3adYUg@mail.gmail.com> <65C7C985-DC0C-4A10-9348-F149143F67DA@bluepopcorn.net>
Message-ID: <4C35DA82-0AB0-45F2-94FA-E8080310CC73@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6U0xoz2vgvZUXqLm7aSGVa6GHfQ>
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 23:01:00 -0000


On April 18, 2023 10:25:00 PM UTC, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2023, at 11:33, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> There is an alternative, though: we can acknowledge that because of how
>> those deploying DMARC view their needs over interoperability, DMARC is not
>> appropriate as an IETF standard, and we abandon the effort to make it
>> Proposed Standard.
>>
>> I see that as the only way forward if we cannot address the damage that
>> improperly deployed DMARC policies do to mailing lists.
>
>Unfortunately, much of the world outside IETF sees an RFC number and assumes Standards Track. We have RFC 7489, which is Informational, which then resulted in a mandate [1] for all executive-branch US Government domains to publish p=reject. I have to believe that they thought it was Standards Track when they did this.
>
>-Jim
>
>[1] https://cyber.dhs.gov/assets/report/bod-18-01.pdf

It's not just in the US either.

That said, I don't think we should throw up our hands and go home.  I think what we have so far is enough improvement over RFC 7489 that it's worth getting published.  I also think we can appropriately describe the interoperability impacts associated with DMARC in a useful way that will provide overall benefits, even though we don't have it solved.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email