IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 01:57 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 866FB21F8EC8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+BBTn8uJTx1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08A521F8EBE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36228 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2013 01:57:09 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2013 01:57:09 -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:vbr-info; s=515a3af5.xn--btvx9d.k1304; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=v4LbGPuN0rzqV/vrYQC9k6tm2rG252xM3JOG//Ha+nI=; b=T2JcwzY9gcQtx4pRT/8jgtmunNaiD6wyuXOQUma1DS6kTdfH4IALBNApT1fzNbD1YJ38ooi/UoigMegmtA6IXasZpqlPzZAbSnx69On0XQ4UWdS0YJSi+taAHrti+UJ3E3idFMcp1ceRQC+Az9LkOSOZUkRKKIEsE8RS9gswVp8=
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:vbr-info; s=515a3af5.xn--btvx9d.k1304; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=v4LbGPuN0rzqV/vrYQC9k6tm2rG252xM3JOG//Ha+nI=; b=zfFlPHUFSgk6N75zIYeiNowCRBihtobBONL3oSmj9gFP8SuVf/HeODvxhXgkSd76ipYK+zG4/jKwgZg4/doQEl7BMTusa3vvMQIuep0UEBN82ldM6EoNp8QIzscOxVD8y50i5jXvm4MWaDyRQ5Ra/E/MSRrxREoz/SDKdtNpTIw=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:56:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20130402015646.6502.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <07885B3D9573426085184C6B2CD2504C@fgsr.local>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: jgomez@seryrich.com
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Apr 2013 01:57:10 -0000

>The point remains: in what form or shape Terry's optional DMARC extension hinders DMARC's goals?

As I've said several times already, it causes DMARC failures on valid
mail, provoking complaints to the recipient mail system.

Beyond that, as a general rule, the more complicated a spec is, the
less likely it is to be implemented consistently and the less likely
different implementations are to interoperate.  As Russ Housely said
as he finished his term as IETF chair last month, a standard is done
not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left
to take away.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email