Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ?
"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 18:25 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 17FB512008F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Rfsv583G; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Te1726Ll
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 pnjiQ8rhAJYG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:25:36 -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 CCC4312004B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3042 invoked from network); 24 May 2019 18:25:34 -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:user-agent; s=be0.5ce8371e.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=nqSfxrQNQ8LvcMsgS74RV2K27puB5RHdCSwP3kOzp8U=; b=Rfsv583G5tmqjpqiRs5dwEAHSa0Tv8Q2sqppoaD4ZUEoE+9j+tIHU7nbPG1vuWGkZR7GeRuAQL57X1HZoULepvmpl30SFTl1agLHQsviKq1UCH+pnZOdG96Ok8m8v9vtfceO9I8/GlbuLZujXHsNX2lU9172S9IDNoCPN+RHk6we5Z5u37/sHzWDBTMc/fSX5Z5xLEhFhxg7bg1bxtXSHATS+xYY5tbm28q45YIHoW45do7cFDHjGHZXZ7tY6mwE
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:user-agent; s=be0.5ce8371e.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=nqSfxrQNQ8LvcMsgS74RV2K27puB5RHdCSwP3kOzp8U=; b=Te1726LlNdKYmFNMk8t3z/O6rApq+CEQ6J3zuL3Yr2V4NnLFaOAlMSmZ6/vqVbsrTLhmmehNHNaCZQzfmTDkmREnKIBdbIh9Umd+m11pB9EgVhmdL8FM6pI7s3hJGbP4EJv+1/C/U8vCKEBZH96ul4CBGO0kD7Rdt+MHpBwXJokR9LZyZ7UYCWH2jyzyHTZT8fKt3KecgxqwWVMiXrsq3XnsC3X7hlSkOfDvTj3ihDqNLz++c4rvJEXEWY3yglft
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 (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 24 May 2019 18:25:33 -0000
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:25:33 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905241416240.51329@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <280824a0-536b-91f1-8072-f7d1cf3051aa@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905241036450.50141@ary.qy> <280824a0-536b-91f1-8072-f7d1cf3051aa@bluepopcorn.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (OSX 337 2019-05-05)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/IH9z5BADOiKO5jkWfYk8MqfAzmI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ?
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 18:25:38 -0000
On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jim Fenton wrote: > I hope this isn't devolving into a "we can't make any changes, because > it might break something" argument. I don't think so, but we also have a tradition of minimizing the changes to what's needed. Look at RFCs 2821 and 5321 for example, where they deliberately left the section numbering and most of the language alone and fit the changes into the existing structure. > 1. When an MTA product says that it "supports DMARC", does that mean > that it has to support both policy and reporting? ... > 2. Along similar lines, I get confused when I hear that x% of {some set > of domains} has "deployed DMARC". What does that mean? ... Deploying DMARC seems to mean any subset of these: 1a. Publish a DMARC record 1b. Publish a DMARC record with a restrictive policy 2a. Evaluate DMARC status of incoming messages 2b. Use that status to manage message disposition 3. Collect reports 4a. Send aggregate reports 4b. Send failure reports It is my impression that most domains that have "deployed DMARC" have done 1b and 3. I've done 1a, 2a, 3, and a very small amount of 2b. Only a few sites do 4a and even fewer do 4b. I'm getting the impression that what we need is a non-normative deployment guide, not as part of the spec. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Peter M. Goldstein
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Brandon Long
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Luis Muñoz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: what is DMARC ? John R. Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating repor… Tim Draegen