[dmarc-ietf] More rethinking on DMARC for PSDs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 10 April 2019 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CFD1203DB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VZyTJmsuoju for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F383120106 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=gamma; t=1554915355; bh=pulpbgoMGtDWQfoij2JtVZNpNcuPIIHJ7JYe9AhVaM4=; l=1342; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BM/mIjMCdDdF9bsJm3xjL7IUBh4EvBKY5TYxZAE58ZjqBkbgat4D0F23oRnmvADKd M7AdFUFcABvNZLH0NfzgnOdV1TD5zkssPLENbTYvmnpdUynTGlltoYfcNQP4vbnGjM 5jpYOQWau3oPdAqhlwXJpzPJywljVtYGFaEUBYa0xyh5KkPxBhxoKRuC7bI9I
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:55:55 +0200 id 00000000005DC013.000000005CAE201B.0000220C
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20190408005045.5EC462011B2BFE@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <dc6a9e04-c29f-3150-71a9-b2d6a40cea92@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:55:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190408005045.5EC462011B2BFE@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BcVkftxnRyzs-oxa5vguO6e7ds8>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] More rethinking on DMARC for PSDs
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:55:59 -0000

I changed the subject to make it clear that this is not about mail filtering in
general.  It is about Scott's draft.

On Mon 08/Apr/2019 02:50:44 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> A decent spam filter will treat a nonexistent From: domain or envelope
> bounce address as extremely suspicious and send the message into spam
> folder purgatory.  If someone's filters aren't doing that, it is
> unlikely that they're paying much if any attention to DMARC, and no
> amount of fiddling with DMARC will make any difference.
> My mail server rejects anything with a non-existent bounce address at
> SMTP time and I don't think it's ever rejected anything my users would
> want.

Me too.  However, I don't reject nxdomain in From:.  I have the option, but I
disabled it because some mailing lists have (had?) authors with addresses like

That said, rethinking boils down to consider if it would suffice to look up the
PSD's _dmarc record only in case of non-existing domains.  Existing domains can
be forced to publish adequate DMARC records by forging a suitable PSD's policy.
 That way, old-fashioned mailing lists can continue to use picturesque From:'s
as long as they are based on traditional TLDs (assuming .com won't publish a
strict DMARC policy.)  And no central repository.