IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 13 April 2023 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 0B2CAC153CA1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Rhzc6HjEGcNl for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (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 9651EC152565 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id ud9so33788686ejc.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681357117; x=1683949117; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9PilUSf+CYAPxqt1T5rcIX61DbZ6lgRjK+rj4jSJEVE=; b=OA8oWIhGthFW6pI3LnSRCilZf2d8rsUe7RHg0eZRMrWMd5iuStyHIEIcY5MakyK2e4 ZwussfQamezN7e5OGDldPUK6t2rlND5hoDA5QdhMyxjRli8J7gf4OJPu81xw95ob1EI1 GMVvJpgNCra0NRGYSB+ThoaVFECf7GvpC9FXSyb8RA36wVTC7GeeM0SZN1SfpIh+p1ua wIK+XGuicDEWgjxCswIEzb3IsLmVb5ziCOwV+7rjJeWFstUfS0VyzmpYdxVWFkRF5EtQ r+JTMpuSwFD8oTrB0KZ2YfByIjGOD/DXNntTc24OUGXkNyXqP+Rr4TU8uJgukW/fbXtN mmaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681357117; x=1683949117; 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=9PilUSf+CYAPxqt1T5rcIX61DbZ6lgRjK+rj4jSJEVE=; b=NSkwNTibhxtkCM1i3S9n+xksmDmbetD8rgtf0IjqHefhm1hYoWm7QWszkuPXijuitd gVCBAaGNUU1giq5IK5gOpDoBcC6W/Rwrh9x/UsgKTldTmCg7CfHaqyUxxWgXDdPvBupi 8pF1JNc0pN5tUaPev5jwwfiB4zCisTYcvr3M5p60kaeoHt2wK7YFEYmVin9IZE9YkiLn XaTqYOkiyptYsrma2Wi99Gtp4kUIDOHU9yx1lOfotmZ5UfRiiNOxy2KVIJQYSyLvakM9 6V6OrGMmUCYzHjsnundEWp1qHHliHqG7NvAE46r/Lp1ru5/KI9g0SWXSu+3Q62on4uLl Si7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dklh62qCWga9pf+EGg1Ttco5zTCNkZB52378B8QZ2AqbmmOb9z rllGIfkIJWR/VXLCFrSrw0oFfn4USU8mMvzRZn9C/jDa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YqtZggcr0/MahCvH1/3QdqYEmLLJXqpysYRXfcSahQsPrHoh1bqBHWhMMQAZ+KV81uT5YWLSAFBli2L50NfmQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c455:b0:94a:5691:b12b with SMTP id ck21-20020a170906c45500b0094a5691b12bmr522630ejb.11.1681357117318; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwZc2X7tyP+_8vvL3Yb7uJk6td3XGbsXUB68BNUEMhV4yQ@mail.gmail.com> <8d970e6b-8fa7-da85-5c47-d485abbc43be@crash.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d970e6b-8fa7-da85-5c47-d485abbc43be@crash.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:38:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZJjBq0T8kODJifTT10ttJJE2Bof5kJZACRTwyauzwQ6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b7eab105f92f75b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/C9ruR3Ik0bxWrioBAldxVyP_YTs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:38:40 -0000

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:45 PM Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> wrote:

> This puts me in mind of Section 8.5, which calls out some potential
> impacts of blocking policies to "Mediators," which role doesn't otherwise
> appear very often in this document. Is there any need to add Mediator
> Actions/Considerations under section 5? Or does this belong in a separate
> document?
>

We should probably review it and think about whether what it says is
enough.

> ISTR there were some vocal and visible mailing list operators that were
> rejecting messages from domains that published "p=reject" policies, maybe
> around 2014-15? I also thought they did this by checking the sending
> domain's published policy in DNS, to your point about implementation.
>
This would be great [anec-]data to have.  Do you remember where you might
have seen it?

> In any case, are we really going to start suggesting that list operators
> start rejecting messages sent from domains that publish a blocking policy,
> as official guidance? (Now I'm looking ever so forward to catching up on
> these other threads - what the heck are people seeing out there??)
>

Well, this WG is chartered to come up with some kind of standards track
solution to the problem.  I don't see one in DMARCbis at the moment.  Given
how long this WG has existed so far, that's a fairly glaring omission.
Doesn't seem to me this idea should be off the table just yet...

-MSK, participating

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email