IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 31 March 2023 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 58605C151717 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:06:53 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="cm7vezOd"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="CDDrqQQt"
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 rMdmOHBpF71w for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2084EC14CEFC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 04:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1680260797; bh=7BkVVkM2relvzFcFDYgQTHTpilNkTy2nYkgCmT5fWl0=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=cm7vezOdlIXUmiFG9c8Ao4OJxS/ggrF8/AhheN38iMwA6fr6LTER2OMvySIFXqVMP zeMFXcCS+HJumnS6MqvBg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1680260797; bh=7BkVVkM2relvzFcFDYgQTHTpilNkTy2nYkgCmT5fWl0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CDDrqQQt3MwD7agBXdHyjf+a+cPqWu6rXE0zm4k4FrO3WoTZQKpZSno+HvEyxOcfu q5jsRd3sPYqUHHPDZS6VWNyLZ7YO5gh3yaYwgCtWIxHadsuROVQAivu/MjNNb8B0hG bwnbh2kcztlzAfFHh6W2+NaFSDDO6CKKskdLBaeVBtCgabEmf7SR3hSG3UlfT
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0FE.000000006426BEBD.00003D17; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:06:37 +0200
Message-ID: <b8815a0d-1ca4-8308-158b-a20b573d9795@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:06:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <6319292.vCqnBZbX7o@localhost> <CAHej_8nd1xyAgwASLJbuJHyXEAfHbjqxNH1XtJxKFyfyOneyug@mail.gmail.com> <13145172.pEV04Z3DvM@localhost> <CAHej_8msLJQ0vbZ2jzitjxrQ1wdim5bHJkiD-QrU5F0EJvQp0g@mail.gmail.com> <FCFEB95E-63F9-46C3-A5F4-FA6B02FA8EB5@episteme.net> <CAHej_8=GbmzyXaeEkyLkv6uKc0-owuMC6UspPNq9irT7nF8b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLmRyyBLE7ZKy88XUS_hXr9M2uwc8jOCYBrBPeC+pCdCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8mjL1YsFcCJrFXKFF70Ozw8qpJtDfUf5_Hb8n6O+Msavg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJmrWEnCE+K8w=go_XAD7RfST3=4cZXxhL3rdcoFvP6_A@mail.gmail.com> <a6622b1e-551a-987b-cdb9-db15b85da5c1@tana.it> <CAL0qLwardd8LgOWFDOS=NB5G-Y_w-omdu95byXiDAb3LCc13FA@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwardd8LgOWFDOS=NB5G-Y_w-omdu95byXiDAb3LCc13FA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/I3WOSl0W7h98lr8EpiR1FaA_YqM>
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:06:53 -0000

On Fri 31/Mar/2023 02:41:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:41 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> 
>> Does that mean that instead of "non-transactional mail flows" we could say
>> "mail flows involving decades old software"?
> 
> If you're going to put that label on MLMs, we need to add it to MTAs too.
> Oh and most of the protocols we're talking about.
> 
> This is a pretty deep rabbit hole.


Agreed.  Yet, did you notice, for example, the steady decrease of 
X-MIME-Autoconverted breakage cases?  The hype on security sped up software 
upgrading quite noticeably.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email