Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Thu, 29 February 2024 19:10 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 62B72C14F68D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:10:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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="u6PVFCer"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="hbGnx1W6"
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 DsJy974C5D7A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:10:34 -0800 (PST)
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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE0FC14F6A3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD52FF8022B; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:09:24 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1709233749; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=q5ExwIi4dwALdfmN0IMO8lA4TTsub9CC1czCI/2D4h4=; b=u6PVFCer2KqpSZGgim1IeT162eIgv7FBsu7tu9TwrOxVXDZsoN+C1jTQmOHBtkftPNseu hZwH+BOBBvF6uhMAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1709233749; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=q5ExwIi4dwALdfmN0IMO8lA4TTsub9CC1czCI/2D4h4=; b=hbGnx1W69tMBeC/MzHCL5V74nlzdMhpRs0DumdX4AxngVMc5xZmF3bl0KsspCFFDkNi/Y JioyMiPayucoGfQNsR6JlCfreZQXFeIwNR92oFEf2cQhY45g3JuZXs9yaVAEC3K9V6gY21s SKNZppz15Y2ZQ068PXts37ZUQ5hiYwUTxVUKYH1xK9pJJIPFLR/211Tlj8uOM6nSyE9nuEQ TFnaBODTp/rs04o22pAkl66LD1/4nd/qTc8uCXu4uJOpmLsRPzMtWlYMzY3nUwLVpfppAZ+ pHVpCyxGtaPMs66EzgaRJPqtWy49jeXg8+6K93Y3nTo363MLdNJ+tWgdw8qg==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mobile-166-170-32-116.mycingular.net [166.170.32.116]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99D36F8010F; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:09:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:02 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8k_6CWH=iOFCwYr02eAnGsXRtb+cuAffPMEBS87RONgeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHej_8k_6CWH=iOFCwYr02eAnGsXRtb+cuAffPMEBS87RONgeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BB63C6A6-2B5F-4C06-AEC0-25949716E4DA@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/7XLKzXt-dK0l_5jBpFkjFUf4HZA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:10:38 -0000
In what way is this a new issue that has not already been argued to death in the WG? I think for WGLC, we've already done this. We will, no doubt get to have this conversation during the IETF last call, but for the working group, this strikes me as exactly the type of relitigation of issues we've been counseled to avoid. Scott K On February 29, 2024 6:54:57 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >Colleagues, > >I've been reading DMARCbic rev -30 today with a plan to collect the first >set of minor edits and I came across a sentence that I believe goes beyond >minor, so wanted to get a sanity check. > >Section 7.6, Domain Owner Actions, ends with the following sentence: > >In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for >general-purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject. > > >I don't believe this to be true, however. Rather, Section 8.6, >Interoperability Considerations, says SHOULD NOT on the topic (e.g., "It is >therefore critical that domains that host users who might post messages to >mailing lists SHOULD NOT publish p=reject") > >Section 7.6 therefore should be updated to read "domains for >general-purpose email SHOULD NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject", yes? >
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Mark Alley
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) I… Neil Anuskiewicz