IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sun, 31 March 2024 00:13 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 9A70CC14F605 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 tj-7vYfUBC-N for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92ECAC14F5F8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20931 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2024 00:13:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=51c16608aa9f.k2403; bh=xH06UH6I715i1hp727vUuNA0hOXTBH8/V5jLzQGiIcM=; b=PeCyRj+Odhlux5u1c0Uc0EzhXe3BqEQdLkcRP0C0tSkyB3fW1Nazq6ebepMMvRzZgSJZo8wV0D8xZ6+kAdbdvtD8DJQQTTq1CkrqTPvuIMmZcNQ34Gg44ui7gVKvHNjgEe4SRKVCxX/V6gC/h7RRgKZeOJ06b+67MoaLcH9n6bNY6kLWZ5etGBhcBz7EWf9of2ARYPw/pj/3MGHF3CeXFh6oJ7HHQakab0u3urIL7N73AfPewQmiHGudEJwjH7vdXzviYJCWW3B0HUau54qanUCdzt6nU991/iRD+cWy9o5o6Hw0i8/QwH+/4/OwrZL6r7J9y0p7kyv/Ww2LhgGZ2w==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Mar 2024 00:13:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5AEF7867E381; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id B943F867E362; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1f08e8fa-e747-c8be-2041-83c4935ab6d1@iecc.com>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb9Wnv5Wv5U88S6Mu3Zod9RHx1u-0pihQ_vFE38=7jqPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F5158C76-BD86-4540-965D-F0D8664B6CD9@bluepopcorn.net> <85761761-ad6a-2a19-da82-344ed52c2391@iecc.com> <B4365E6E-00DF-425E-9974-6EE1DE057319@bluepopcorn.net> <CAL0qLwb9Wnv5Wv5U88S6Mu3Zod9RHx1u-0pihQ_vFE38=7jqPA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/IL9BVzn0ckoXkgpHOSJ9pgKGjj8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:13:27 -0000

> I concur with Jim that rewriting strategies are in scope for the WG
> according to its charter, especially if we have something to recommend
> going forward.

Our advice is not to publish a DMARC policy if you want to use mailing 
lists.  We have a lot of experience with message rewriting and I think we 
have all found that the options range from pretty bad to really bad, so 
there's nothing to recommend.

Also keep in mind that there is ARC, and probably follow-ons to it, so we 
wouldn't be doing people any favors by recommending rewrite strategies 
that screw up lists and are likely to become obsolete.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email