IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 09 April 2023 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 3EED2C1782D0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 11:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 nnIom7qvlHmn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f46.google.com (mail-ej1-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) (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 B265BC14CEFA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Apr 2023 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f46.google.com with SMTP id sb12so7880319ejc.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Apr 2023 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1681065246; 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=8ivyvo24lCaz4NtwPL2oPCg6NPPGMIUuQdagxCQG6LA=; b=RIDcOaoxXtZYkGOcDd86d0ysTzEfrK9RwXUcj0yjkkHHn3ASW+6ZdXOhUTpxDeVr6U zCBTCqVJcze6PXvdnLJYKvNuufHFVdgpHsJzK6JRl4rRTBH5tgdYKGg9dAlbE7p0DA8/ 2KmQwrdXmAF6Y1H0WwPP5H8q0sMv9GNulYc1IaXdFNi/PK7HSLldkje+mv9u1cUn6zko +2wCZjPZ7Azz18gac+Fa8pat6aucyy8E0ZlpM1NnERqaA4nJBWMiaUQp0/dmxSeBAJAz qGALgv9JjrfcZj60e32qu1rymPx6Oj/yZ7WEl+EUP/dgRvB7vdT/rR0/SzasAV79ectr zMQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f2OoxqVzkQEkNbx4yUJKWnKs3N21gmA2MvJEU3liUqLdbibnGK FGhRYWVPkR4b9uX6hbEpAspx3v2UsyjpgSsxxfNwcJrr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a3ID5HjO/frX6W9K3b3sd4lu3a9o1JPZkHDRvigiSgvBRHCbnJtwKkDw1Hr3////tiC0960AkaodVTS+HOSgg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6447:b0:932:e546:b8bb with SMTP id l7-20020a170906644700b00932e546b8bbmr2667960ejn.0.1681065245715; Sun, 09 Apr 2023 11:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230409005207.DCA8BBD1CC17@ary.qy> <4a0dba74-3e25-b9cb-dd64-20bf04ae76ba@tekmarc.com> <7b599a98-922a-44db-af91-2f8aa0f74181@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b599a98-922a-44db-af91-2f8aa0f74181@app.fastmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2023 14:33:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJQ-Mh+=EsmA7QatrcCbCSSTGHt6fRGWequ+KCH3adYUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jesse Thompson <zjt@fastmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d0b00105f8eb80fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/CrGes1lbGXnTNk_WOyn3ep_jxZU>
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: Sun, 09 Apr 2023 18:34:12 -0000

> As Todd previously stated, my preference is for language that
> acknowledges the primacy of the domain owner over interoperability

The problem is that IETF standards are about interoperability, not about
anyone’s primacy.

There is an alternative, though: we can acknowledge that because of how
those deploying DMARC view their needs over interoperability, DMARC is not
appropriate as an IETF standard, and we abandon the effort to make it
Proposed Standard.

I see that as the only way forward if we cannot address the damage that
improperly deployed DMARC policies do to mailing lists.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email