Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 21:00 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 956023A0B6F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:00:43 -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 YmUXBv3q7vLt for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (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 61E123A0B61 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id f132so2531749oib.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:00:41 -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=ObrDJB7IymYpiSp9EF1V80dXSpFXuYWLhp7Heu7wB+0=; b=gKOw16w+/0I56ABYDNwLxq2mTxuOH3JaURZMGEW0Kn2+nFRcv960fdqG7kh2POdSIW 0moY+mJZPk/9hWfmmtHoEJBNkYw1h9vUKvmC5i6DzuQ80eN9ilN1LliqZF2Lv6SWsjXX XWMqiVL/9JmRxrEhgNGRQObRlmgeH2Gtvx22L47N6MsSKm/vBwzOWPTHDZCLuf4RqZe/ IwkXtVG2KJ0DcWPTysD3zkdTXn566i4qK8hKCrCEP0LzYOjkq6D3aLUzdjhId0D3ncgZ bN0AyL183/59agpCI1Rl6RCI0PxM/sKwkAn8r8WqPzjtkoT8ICpaa96K5Hh93w5Y5dUI 4WaA==
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=ObrDJB7IymYpiSp9EF1V80dXSpFXuYWLhp7Heu7wB+0=; b=hm9SOKvyUw+3XqKEKSsnsCXKPCc0cle59B/1hZyZ81RatAIVViGdCMvxnYW9bwAQxF rmWKNhnR2EIombA+ChaHQBx+dpCbRCNGQIgUXLuFcme/4UIXCRbatlfxgTlSATsQ7LeX F1DTL8qMogdYUVWQgaQ93SglowDDPPuWEyZLyH004K5gsloqfXH1WQYvhMwBZdXglWhm 6ItV3SPzEnWvWL2wThn0LV3nks5eXqBaezkJnGSTNaYK6PwlEF62ajyAhTjzWLkTCUZa YN2CLvaJp12fy1DscfatUVqDC+SxVyNHwAd7VuWMp+sl1dcbtN77aDMIUJUqLd3KBd8o XFgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tmhBXB+nT4s6vBqCldyATGBEt4QxyeGFc0FPJBKaeixrxHjEx EgseV/MsfvJbmjLIEtuwxQ2CSeWhxc/ViVPfKdsg87Uz
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydvOtGK2PhSIvGXeA1gMKT444ZpKf43iWfi4siYBdVMCzy8DMno29AWwipn7ZQlu58rr/QeZZJ/50l+KHPQCk=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c3c6:: with SMTP id t189mr497412oif.21.1607374840664; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 13:00:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201207191959.6D772292166A@ary.qy> <3ce2c2cc-66ca-c3da-d67d-b45c919aa8fd@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ce2c2cc-66ca-c3da-d67d-b45c919aa8fd@mtcc.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:00:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G4NHQf6NWrbGgyiwTEBFBo8Dp+oM2g5FqNWBJ4NTd_rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066161205b5e61e47"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/AgGDyEhPSbFbQzi-wRPotsk1uwk>
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:00:51 -0000

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/7/20 11:19 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > In article <b069e7c1-51a8-4550-76a9-c7e78f04c780@tana.it> you write:
> >>     Compared with the use of "l=" tag (Section 8.2 of [RFC6376]), the
> >>     fact that footers are written in plain text ...
> > They are?  Some are, some are added as MIME parts.
> >
> > We really need to keep in mind that there is a lot of list management
> > software with a vast array of configuration options.
>
> This is why we need actual numbers instead of anecdotes about the long
> tail. We know that there is no silver bullet. Mailing lists who are
> configured in a way that causes their traffic to not get delivered can
> be configured in a way that will. It's not our problem.
>
>
Are you talking about integrating ARC?  Then you are correct, operational
data.  This is why until that happens, we're not talking about adding ARC
into
the DMARC flow, and it's why the ARC work is Out Of Scope in this WG.

tim