Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)

Franck Martin <> Sat, 06 July 2013 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F0C21F9B94 for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.19
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vy3TmH7GPdFM for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7394521F9C4E for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;;; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1373138131; x=1404674131; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vjlJDNLFsHw718OrNrA+kJiYBLi2UFymqHpVc77tTR0=; b=pNM7+FQ/Q7RmzrIWVkUa1KLoM6iOWqWrDGvZLrjLmrYDAIV5uazpTCkZ iCoUkCDMmj4neHBFKBXnnKHJ2arI+ylGq97GUsLSBz69IxGoNLx/oEKQv /gn6LX+cyb9tGQes6cI8YeZPq5Sj0lj6/phoEloGjm8lkYc7pVsmjiJdl E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1010,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="54887137"
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:15:14 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::20f1:6264:6880:7fc7]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:15:14 -0700
From: Franck Martin <>
To: SM <>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)
Thread-Index: AQHOenNZRnhBwLurRkCph9DVdvyg+JlYesqA
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:15:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<>" <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:15:37 -0000

On Jul 6, 2013, at 11:01 AM, SM <> wrote:

> Hi Frank,
> At 01:14 06-07-2013, Franck Martin wrote:
>> There is not much standardization of response codes from MTAs. There are extended response codes, but then you cannot deduct from them, if the problem is due to DMARC or other security policies. If I'm not mistaken, take the case of Facebook, refusing an email because you are not a friend of the recipient... Or the same error code could indicate SPF or DKIM or other protocol failure... Having the word DMARC in the text of the error message gives a lot of information for debugging a specific email. Consider also the error could be generated after a forwarder is trying to send an email... Without a proper hint of what is the reason of the reject it is very hard to know what really happened for a specific email.
> That is usually know as a local policy decision.  If I recall correctly the question of the sender knowing the reason for a mail delivery failure was discussed in another working group.
> I understand the use case mentioned above.  I would look at the draft in terms of a standard for the Internet, if that is the intended purpose, instead of a document about how to know why a message is considered as spam.
Sure, but if you don't provide guidance in this document for implementors, where will you give it?