IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 section 5.2.2 should be stricken

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 27 July 2018 21:41 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 44462130E52 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=u3vSIeiq; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=p/6GqtGB
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 bUE7J_rzyySZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:41:25 -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 7F285130E3F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29825 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2018 21:41:24 -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; s=747f.5b5b9184.k1807; bh=gPUKttpOLfz20x7VOV+vG01tGxBEE1z/uS7XtPfb8qs=; b=u3vSIeiqLDEePdOwGJ6f6Yn2hXfkVPcC1KRk57WS54v8IgEEYgOI7rHi4XTYD2Gv1p0l22ploRp1E2EAdSMN1RKVfx/D9dDEsfio8AuwYb9c0VK5Kj5hTinIXakIJ/yeDZaj8oMF6cvrh4aBARGXwZcbmAwUBYe0pKgI89Eeo+JvxdC2GUOgXTopu7SSETd2x3gUmrziMatkNkCempBG8BhTADHT+edtrrxvbjc06AmVOysnN3bPmTNWb6RzWMJo
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; s=747f.5b5b9184.k1807; bh=gPUKttpOLfz20x7VOV+vG01tGxBEE1z/uS7XtPfb8qs=; b=p/6GqtGBmYlqMdV6OvNNbc2yteoxBz3E6l2o4CTqnP+3QMigRqm41zPGjHCSqShPmZAt+qsY0d0Whv+dNTfDZEvBCx2U0+xppErqvagBSO0oa5grpi8QITgmsd6eTX4vbJtRL9usxEuYJXYHqMqiYx6rHOmlnkkZemLEXi9uTzw4kMGhfYJIug66eRgfYenKe4Chk15JwU+Nupv5GhVYIhX51JzamMmjlWm3KfePl7JYZcnZQqBcEREkiu/rlomw
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 27 Jul 2018 21:41:24 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2CB782002E4689; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:41:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:41:23 -0400
Message-Id: <20180727214124.2CB782002E4689@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: seth@sethblank.com
In-Reply-To: <CAD2i3WNsMgd7v6t_UWt18ShceW33H8LcCH8RQVf8o5KpCWfh1g@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/K8YhzcRWwZIi8EAmf_uKpFQtFE0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 section 5.2.2 should be stricken
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 27 Jul 2018 21:41:28 -0000

In article <CAD2i3WNsMgd7v6t_UWt18ShceW33H8LcCH8RQVf8o5KpCWfh1g@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>
>> And if you don't want to make a new one, 5.7.26 (Multiple authentication
>> checks failed) seems at least not wrong.  To get to this point DKIM,
>> DMARC,
>> and ARC have failed.
>
>Is this better moved into Experimental Considerations?
>
>We could put simple text around if an error code is appropriate or not, and
>if so if a new one is needed.

Just add the error code.  It's really not a big deal.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email