Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 99E873A0D89 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:25:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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=pbGwji1T; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=AzXVub39
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 9bZEv_FQYWbH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:25:54 -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 AF9C63A0D76 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 77108 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2020 02:25:48 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=12d32.5fcee42c.k2012; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=0DBc4w+Oy/sGLXWD8oVKSdELiIZHfrfqqa5zQN6MvqE=; b=pbGwji1T3JVG1MTNKKaFLemTEtvdfaqlLedCwREs3NWXF+A99+XuusGzMOS4uSR6jFydMri7OtUBgujlvb/fc+aRB7w8WP9Vsq+30OaEeJV01x+16sHCWjIWUvjGvTin50LC0qXVtRcxz4F4B+xsuqAnzRcJV8/wGEHxo9M5rLQ44Ecbed4/unImaYLFltTYNikci5vSRrcmCZQaTa4KuIrH+0nwhParUeqjvoCc1WOvCs0uHQvueVL4kPQTPFQkJ7X0q7RWUBnFyPJCBABIa04vZG7bs2ThmLJdvC9hvX9FBOf8Q9kdAqEYljhZFkG44UN9K0KKCEJIdOaKpJYlIg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=12d32.5fcee42c.k2012; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=0DBc4w+Oy/sGLXWD8oVKSdELiIZHfrfqqa5zQN6MvqE=; b=AzXVub39z/yJGoZ1TwwqTBbygpSjU2Q5EKd51eh72co2zfLEf3CPK6jJYMc4Z5yJKLqmN/e/Bfo/F/XfEJe907WuHUuy1JSEQVr3X/I0u8hzKbgsYN4FY2za73QKHqLpKO/29YsgH+I8D4ybgu4yWcziM+yuxMcPU9Q170aIgfTyOhLC4dGKtiA179fP34vTY0BOVijV5XBkaTvAODTGbjGy4Xr/p18J1wEbU2ugwkYUNWFyN+w32TYlGJxrL7ozwEp8A1jcNHeRtnDC9+8RiUlSUARSPNcs6fmp3C/efvGce8ogusp2Z5VEciYYyJzFqF5ZDh+hBWTcjfzhIL2K/A==
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 08 Dec 2020 02:25:48 -0000
Date: 7 Dec 2020 21:25:47 -0500
Message-ID: <90597428-e6d-9f3e-2ae3-99a16e13487@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Jim Fenton" <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5EFCDAFF-26EF-4FC1-B7E2-E44CA66872BB@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy> <5EFCDAFF-26EF-4FC1-B7E2-E44CA66872BB@bluepopcorn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-319825755-1607394348=:68481"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FV1wOlze_AC1jK90XO2YzrhXGEc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 02:25:56 -0000

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Jim Fenton wrote:
> Agree, the reporting is great. But so much of the marketing/mandates I see 
> around DMARC doesn’t tell domain owners to turn on reporting first to see 
> what’s broken, it tells them to publish a DMARC p=reject policy because they 
> have a security vulnerability if they don’t. If the guidance around DMARC was 
> to publish a p=reject policy only “if it’s safe to do so” (meaning mostly for 
> transactional domains), I’d be a lot happier with it.

Yes indeed.  It's pretty much the same issue as people who have DMARC on 
a checklist so they publish an SPF record and p=reject, check the item, 
and I'm stuck with mail that disappears when I forward it to its intended 
recipient.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly