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

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Wed, 12 April 2023 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 B6345C15154E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 S9kKXKQvhXNw for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 EC830C151532 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id o1so14155938lfc.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681296857; x=1683888857; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xlebUgZbLyn2W04ktnWv6M3C5Iz4IHGZHOEntvjmSRQ=; b=J9upDeYKlcEvUA5+Z00docEk8ki+uXf3qrFqT+xRdnzW+8HSZbgCsLBmoreCdHQ78Z 0Y/5Uc/9J5f3hVG5B9in3+3+16mwzN9wVPu7L/TSWkg0n+h78cMbYGjYOWou5ei5fhOv AuXF4sj5b1ufxEtWepciF7vXSjDIe9iDELGvYZXBsy0fY542Xv7UxqUQ3mArVWLl3u5Y AjgWruSqsGL1wuHB+JOUxny/psLH/6dMRFBzuz+ADGUDmMCH0kp0Ki/Wo28kt3dAliMO AgGfwI2omaL30FzdPnMQR22EPZ1b2ZjiYCQFIUawCTCd3bb5SuPTCHAyyerEfmJ7GMLM Hlhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681296857; x=1683888857; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xlebUgZbLyn2W04ktnWv6M3C5Iz4IHGZHOEntvjmSRQ=; b=OtMZ+iL3kDATsi27C0/FJleZjeB16dveLPpZaqY+wxwUabHMw0vX9n+FyLRvll5N5q pGlRxVNwiuz9n8IwKsItc3scFuFoA1CWq3en3A0dZYIDNnSyeylFI1rY9Bv4bcei6OyK c4uKstjAQwSE9EQEY+o7CpvmEUDKczXluXKaWwx0pu47qZwMEtRhcdgDz9nkOzYWFVy3 X8PsxbGA6CO+7xUndFvW6u83JY/r+2iUNPc8/7AosUf46u7sqVMySFTuQEkqlFDsQ3JP 42UR8VJco0X5zqqOTKuIMEqFgf+Phn7I8xJaP2s1ahXusyvZTdh31hRKOQpfn5Y8bHeQ uE2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9duX0+6tByGmJ58EspbYdlKelfUSj9Z14i+BpvpR/qO854JfKVK P1UrS6NjOxzhY5b9qOaItW8Zuk7Q3bZccz4w1wA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bQ67ZYqZG//IUoE/eCFsvMlxouAd0Vr52kp+ycTpeaEeJikoPO8DkB8dvC70/j3G8BlkuKg8Ds7CYntOElN+0=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:57d3:0:b0:4ec:85f6:5bf7 with SMTP id k19-20020ac257d3000000b004ec85f65bf7mr1851593lfo.5.1681296856481; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 03:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <13603D87-4FDE-4768-9712-E6DB0818C802@kitterman.com> <CALaySJLY-9O1Wauk50WMMobNs3cKUzmB+=np080nYCHEZa32UA@mail.gmail.com> <3129648.WqDQmVRvLn@localhost> <CAH48ZfzwUTtzcn3Us+_u7NwMHqjp8UavyrDEPQndXUtUFk4O1w@mail.gmail.com> <6debabf4-64dd-f920-84f5-f66c2e8410dc@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <6debabf4-64dd-f920-84f5-f66c2e8410dc@tana.it>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:54:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfypJHzxxhn=7L+RZj_YnA=MZ2gr+_UndZKnMaimnTZ1bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e481f505f9216d11"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/8-J1R02sk12mgRSnmMHlda0CrjI>
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: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:54:22 -0000

Thank you for returning to the topic of stream identifiers.   Email
filtering is not about single messages, it is about identifying and
classifying streams into high value (whitelist), low value (allow) and
unwanted (block).

I know existing filtering configurations that will conditionally block list
messages, without DMARC, because of a distrusted From value.   So I do not
believe every thing would be hunky-fory if DMAzrC could only go away.

My Stream-Info header idea could add a lot of value to the ML problem

Doug

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 5:47 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Sat 08/Apr/2023 23:27:26 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
> > Even when the recipient and the evaluator have a great working
> relationship,
> > neither party may understand what exceptions are needed for the messages
> from
> > every participant, current or future, to be accepted reliably.   So the
> list
> > messages arrive smoothly until a message is sent from a participant in a
> > geo-blocked country.    The user discovers the problem when he realizes
> that he
> > has no idea what topic is being discussed, because he missed the initial
> post.
>
>
> That seems to be an old-fashioned non-rewrite case.
>
>
> > It seems evident that to get consistent evaluation results, evaluators
> need to
> > judge based on the list identity and reputation, rather than the sender
> > identity and reputation.   I do not see how this can be achieved without
> > replacing the From address with an address in the list domain.
> Replacing the
> >  From address is not the only obstacle, but it is the starting point.
>
>
> An alternative to matching From: could be to match stream identifiers.
> Someone
> tells the recipient's MX that she subscribed to stream XYZ, so please
> accept
> such posts.  I'd guess a list has to be "DMARC-clean" for MXes to agree.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>