Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 01:03 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 940C21201D1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 18:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=YgqWpfkg; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=n+ABbOqs
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 ITndTzU5m1w9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 18:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
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 E156B1201C9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 18:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 33135 invoked by uid 100); 24 May 2019 01:03:36 -0000
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 01:03:36 -0000
Message-ID: <qc7ft8$vsg$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:cleverness; s=8167.5ce742e8.k1905; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=iMGyl+Sz3WjZE3tizGKZVNOtJ+XMKeE3gEUDV6+RCF4=; b=YgqWpfkgM3JcYgmLZFe6ymUDeyPkZj1UOtQcS+oaSapJWTLkI1YzBZaEINwfQKUgv/MhYNVFGvFMQOYJQSOlQAkSsXKOIYLYo7Em38UB7EDaE88YF9doHIfYNQ91xpBIUXlhO94uSijdB/csCMkjyqT04UYawqXEmmAvymyH37cMcCqynETB6HrKQoL0Z9HG+xshKJSWY+NRnrhwcKIBqvL3dEx3F2BSD8sSpTY6RHzKJX8YeFAXo9Y+mbvy81g/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:cleverness; s=8167.5ce742e8.k1905; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=iMGyl+Sz3WjZE3tizGKZVNOtJ+XMKeE3gEUDV6+RCF4=; b=n+ABbOqsJgiGISaevDwB/sFxt7D8O7dhsPbDOI4XQS+ePTkxXcgZOuAWPh0OMjh5W7kkk/giODuju1vLVwSczjp5M66Ac3haKXUdoALcn8EX1mwdszQ/zoJET319wnQHSYLgkJLNXusqq7DeLO7jOJvcYkzy64rRZGGiV4x1djQxjsrMndse5u4c/p+KODwuGuXmGPHyRmmsi+ZmXU098D8L0jBFo8UFFbzcrCqLkj/9cx37fDfI+GCm0AdySOfT
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net> <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GHSH-cj3MngWSX9Pg6N4-fDd74w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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: Fri, 24 May 2019 01:03:42 -0000

In article <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy>,
John Levine  <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>In article <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net> you write:
>>There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage of
>>mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are
>>domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports.
>>I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different documents
>>dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a
>>separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant"
>>that is referenced by both, that would be OK.
>
>Given that we already have one document, I would be very strongly
>opposed to this.  It's fine to fix things that are wrong, but trying
>to restructure it retroactively will inevitably lead to accidental
>incompatibilities.

On the other hand, if you want to write separate non-normative
tutorials for the reporting part and the policy part, sure, go ahead.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly