Re: [dmarc-ietf] not enhanced status codes Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

Douglas Foster <> Sun, 01 August 2021 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE733A230C for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZujTEatJdlnS for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32EE63A2309 for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h63-20020a9d14450000b02904ce97efee36so3187675oth.7 for <>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kAWn+ObgshbwIvNWkZaYJ0t7NoSzKzqzXZLYRCteFy0=; b=H3wjNKXa0/yRJ/EeYQM4e0x2bAQ9T7dWgHJrZDQUo7R/duVw6FrPO5sVVRZIce6iAX CQMZOpcvc9gRgwwMKMEUVn9NrKO9Ca8qKAiJU3/nmvtj3EIvSHrr/oZf+Z+FOvKnV7hP 7WSo1cpzi+T056WM6Orh/yyCwzHjCacBRfLCNQVCPDBWcepgsrA88PFEYWYS3mrzhURA 9Flp4d9jvSrJPf1q+fVpdCoYfLW+4t3PDkCSMlN7G2kG1bwNzVJmW9WVa2tABqIg9ZUs NkLwfm6FwO9zGzcC6spF0rTycPHBDY7xQS2AnP4iPiSFVyswTPnxA61nNMCOzwDyaAZK ICfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=kAWn+ObgshbwIvNWkZaYJ0t7NoSzKzqzXZLYRCteFy0=; b=RmFAzVUbrqk22qSF8pnu6PxXkS/d1wKggiGDwA41ATztQlGZZ6oGIC7QRfFZyTH8nr Gr2vFqGv35IgMLc0fQv9mXX1NOrJhqzc59xLRiCsMwP1JFkaTssj13TC9/AsJxT+n7SA igqHpCpYnCJpbp6/TndGacJyOa0AMrYJhpwhjcDBggOyNcKaptNi2a7prh6MMtNG31vU jf7wK4NJ/9nQVihi2DndlqSnysGknxYcyBOHujGaa9b4Jw8GqcrOUFayeWzp7RsffPFG 900ZfPSxLN0KMIdZAWOe28WRaw9N2cygwZ68KZ7PI/vVem2mlYcm6pr6JLhzDGez8kaO FVjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+PXSs+CsQ3HsWyDSDByhMOv64gyt3qV0YqrGHjDGDWWQ9mBpT wEtm4T4CVtQw9VjxsKfqAk+6vhCVh4E+ytkOnbLW2njt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyCl6KvdhkWN0IYeApCJk55PFP60I8ln5CAIupKyoJJ4nrwD0ZBFn6t7yQv5pIa1awPCqfbj4Jko2r6HSkQdrI=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7010:: with SMTP id k16mr6895572otj.298.1627778539719; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 17:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210731202426.CE9FD2566204@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20210731202426.CE9FD2566204@ary.qy>
From: Douglas Foster <>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 20:42:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a20fbe05c874b986"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not enhanced status codes Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 00:42:26 -0000

2.6.0 really is a mystery to me.  The domain under study uses p=reject and
is getting 100% authenticated in the RUA reports, so it does not fit John's

I always get 2.6.0 from servers and a few other destinations.
 So perhaps it is just their version of "OK so far, but I may block you
later in the evaluation process."

I would be interested if anyone else has data on extended status codes.  If
it seems too off-topic for the whole group, you can send to me directly.


On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 4:24 PM John Levine <> wrote:

> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy  <> said:
> >Indeed; I would like to understand what 2.6.0 is meant to convey.  As I
> >read the IANA registry entries, "2" means success but "6" means there was
> a
> >media type error.
> I think it's supposed to mean "I accepted your message but I wouldn't have
> if I were
> enforcing DMARC p=none".
> Since this would be a gift to spammers trying to probe and evade filters,
> I find it
> very unlikely anyone would implement it, so no.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list