Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 05 December 2020 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 2ED393A0E3A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:11:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=iecc.com header.b=eQ48zR/d; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=LZKxrHVH
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 BqiY3J6spL9A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1E6C3A0E39 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3723 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2020 23:11:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e84.5fcc1384.k2012; bh=1KDVbMT0DZcKoXyvNGbz9gt5XthoVz25NSkDOMrH22Y=; b=eQ48zR/dbvscTHneCMMTd4I9LaCfOLwQ7hLX9qYTDzs5t3rQUQLQH7I26eDxnhocUqtkeUfF9Y5fDFbr3gxJPfPxYOmUFjSMaNYMkhfqfy+xD7tsOoRKNmpM0LPIXjHC3WxOxlyapsxFaSX83rWOoBbqxFJv0IqieHNbCLJwh7NJ/SCbww2ErslghRvg8p4KIlp6ZZsj/Bw//GlNCznlSF+RK9pqSVzbEVMA0FtGOgyzJ7sVmFdofAX3a8wQdsa7274FhBy5PH52fAnOrdLMQ2bbi5wc7AluM0amLmj1NHk9rJ8N8ik9oGQUunbNS4L0u9BX1/PDCradaLCyKCN0lw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e84.5fcc1384.k2012; bh=1KDVbMT0DZcKoXyvNGbz9gt5XthoVz25NSkDOMrH22Y=; b=LZKxrHVHgTt5IkQ8YM6USFQ3ycHLzb3034HelnRVDBv5tKxM5aEZ5DI3YAi3nzcLtJS+eGQ9eI1mwzo+F/SlNFi1mPKe9VStVEWHKNp23zKzGcMWJC58Yht1GkBFRuEQ65jFZylWdm4VNN9jK68TZSTrrFiDbdd0n4V3sfX6HVQEd9rJV9j7VDQ/kKe7v27RdwgW3gdMA2DDDlNtoOKTcwiJ/2WxMvwu3rhwmRIL1Xbt8dFlFKFEI8+S1aZvyG08Yzw6Gtp2lzI8lmsmgziVDi9Jl33PPGfaXifnPAjnX8Y+Q4Pa0ik7D9gvqtSgEmdj5CHX7EZuzo8Rmy4ohnW8Zw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 05 Dec 2020 23:10:59 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2BA23290EDCD; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:10:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: 5 Dec 2020 18:10:58 -0500
Message-Id: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: mike@mtcc.com
In-Reply-To: <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/F3rkUB8FXkChr9e9wUpSdb6Mslo>
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: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:11:06 -0000

In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com> you write:
>If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new 
>state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail. If I want 
>you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an acceptable 
>place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like 
>reject-except-valid-arc.

Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system

a) I don't believe you.

2) I don't care.

I think you will find this reaction pretty common.

I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I described
for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the only way
to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC
policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even need ARC
for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect
routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to.

You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY mean
it, but see 2) above.

R's,
John