IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Mon, 18 January 2021 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 DFD223A0332 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:17:47 -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 VKbysinqxeQ6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 8B3EF3A0317 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id e17so2921255qto.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:17:46 -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=/QvTkP1ryUslwrbq4ZSNS+dcLDhX+ujU8d/jYorVoHo=; b=eCVEoyoqfdVsiyOKQp9P93V/UT1CFpwC/euR5STx3WYXtdTOYrBs3uhoUUoAFtew1P yHzlNqla6JkU1sTUFd+bM3nul6+bc/WZP5g10xt3gW2eBwSBAQzBDZUnnnZrl/+mo+98 ZKhxQGTcPRoC8ddKW0IQy9F43NhGzHEsBZgNvT/OaD2ee10Bqobr72x7onJvweW5iDKV 7I0VStdArb4Ms8jXp73bxIrYBj3hahmj40bxktiVnMzeUN2+Frl0rGNUdvIXDOG3+ezY Uz/DNPoit8IA2bM5+kUIgQ3jfv0Fiv2H3inwFmZxOspv2fYKEs55o046uLRcOcqHgC/V Dwdw==
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=/QvTkP1ryUslwrbq4ZSNS+dcLDhX+ujU8d/jYorVoHo=; b=MULiskKn+9/DqcY9dJi8WsJJVnkGk9i7UY7tRWpVpSLDMSPSbz6dVH01Nrck/FsgAR 7Yy6UHohIMJr8wVlbeDdSXeArmN5Xj2sPwhpbRbXjAQJrXocbsfPhCPs1cYfNqIj6P1s CuuhlpRU5t0SxU0ReE0QkydRvD8jjJCYzOdEAPzgs0kMVCKTwpiKlckxuA9m7Gm0dKPu w55wjjy5zCNy3nITNf3RtGmhZ6/+uhQhXnmL/ExJ9k95CFbc/nkc/faix7wyU3KfsNK4 VsQpH6NXgASCGiGPpRkyJ/hfCvit6FdUfRBiJx//RpOvPO5gFK5lRiYy36Nof0h5Geu4 EfhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sxvQaNzEWoFgMc26LB1wIZW7xdaZ/1Jv5o1UP1qbpy3PhEFUd AWbF/RFEvMTeZhgu7mV4YzoNQqEUr0YwGlcoK7c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4nyaa46zCeWBK66kSuNYiQWkw1qY/PRo+dZtB/ueBrY9MlABLrRpOAz/kHqB0r10+DpQAWbc3/qU8Hdia1dM=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:67ca:: with SMTP id r10mr1034233qtp.267.1610997462388; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:17:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210117213536.165266B2315E@ary.qy> <8b8b3304-80f5-7287-aee8-e86ff72dcd31@tana.it> <7e5b91cc-8ca8-6f7f-4c3e-83e13a85c61d@taugh.com> <fad5eb1c-8cea-e061-fb57-a7e5538d281a@tana.it> <128070e1-25e2-ed76-e4cb-a54ef746b02@taugh.com> <7a13ec60-8d17-0d80-2f55-a5a262689897@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <7a13ec60-8d17-0d80-2f55-a5a262689897@tana.it>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:17:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYfvRQ2KguDBsfWGqHH3-hKYBi9vCf=n6Afu8muJLjuOyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ad44605b93193b0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BxEKutTgC5NVMvyLAPb7Q_4Zv2Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none
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, 18 Jan 2021 19:17:48 -0000

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:14 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

>
> On Mon 18/Jan/2021 19:56:21 +0100 John Levine wrote:
>
> >
> >> BTW, the current spec does not mean that an invalid p= implies the
> >> DMARC record is broken.  If it did, it wouldn't say to check rua= in
> >> that case.
> >
> > I know.  It would have been better if it didn't say that, but it's too
> > late to change it now.
>
>
> I don't understand why you say it's too late.  This is not emailcore,
> and we don't risk getting back to proposed standard if we change too much.
>
> We're just writing a proposed standard.  When choosing between a
> better spec and sticking to the existing one what criteria are we
> complying with?
>

You are assuming facts not in evidence, namely that your proposal results
in a better standard.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email