IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Objections to Sender header as override

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 30 September 2020 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 0AE603A1042 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CdjnfCIZIW14 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F122E3A103F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id j3so324034vsm.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O8lWnDmcqAO4KMY4vybbOHFH3gPggq4sZP0DTno2q5Y=; b=kwkN2pw2qE0OJoQDJr1T9o26FB4UJ5HZkWZ849IHpm/le/NPD5C311smVn5WbpO/8o Zu3LPugrmxQvxVCHGstUhvT9KLuEJmppwpWbAHMY0ESLTJcP1j2pFqA7N/jrtbQRsPva ZX3fVvTOy0imMNuRTy0wBB3ORh2HsLRD9qG/J+PAFuKgZ2HRhfwnvk6MnUkMqrSgE+f+ n8rYK9ljAjxMpTqlY+nKbB4yQg0ONere4O/FM46O8X2qOGahO5ko7gfsEbvthKPpwMIR DS6btIfejjArVbOqIP35YUr8qAsJwsA1DojiJjRbTwuoyEsz5WdXDuAYZpR0tuiM85nG UMVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O8lWnDmcqAO4KMY4vybbOHFH3gPggq4sZP0DTno2q5Y=; b=CjTg4rFk3qGyVjKsIeY/JU86hfEbwWwqCdqcpop7Y4XKQ5cXhkpZavVdeUhnL96dvC KJBrsqzoCEbAoPRf+AWIWhg8GPP8SJ90GX/1rNkw4DvauWPN4UyO3AFg2iABbzIQSyUs 3eNNpqlyKQbG3b6EehnHvzQaGFyjAXjIcabozMMZat8OypKk4ri1+JpNmzIw73rvg2gA Km3fhpopPSmspkgljsRcMlZD1rAleECofG1Y8pYpT6CZeAtrRrlamHy/b3UC7uV2vRXN aAWRY2EWIBa70yRTO357LMIJSzZ/Y2lM+Jv+5ZccZYZEH+dpIe3w4LSLJKQ2zgI9iAOr FWOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rr3iB7LC4cMroENNFzHwtt89SxZshOlcZR75NGhesh7ruwAsJ k+/PZGmmYnyiIFMHTDB/fTVqGgFm1QprNj9d7hfXqirPyzY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOVbeR6uu3d7q96ifwa03lX8v7lTTMyAs9Ey8H0qMEQIeQMCbU6w1/IlXvTUUt9xjHRYMu52fh4JDgifoyYfQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:402:: with SMTP id 2mr314944vse.0.1601440002684; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200927171611.838B321D9BAD@ary.qy> <5069099.lO0Lvmlme3@zini-1880> <a4e016ba-673a-81f0-829b-b3b7adb6fcac@dcrocker.net> <5F73393D.4010805@isdg.net> <7afb25f6-c258-e92c-fdfe-10fe26ccecec@dcrocker.net> <5F73B80F.2000402@isdg.net> <b52efd45-cec3-1ceb-5ff6-c455e8b46b84@dcrocker.net> <CABa8R6uS80Jy=xcMi-XFmD=W7QwkMi1A8ebyGoCJCjeq6=61Yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uS80Jy=xcMi-XFmD=W7QwkMi1A8ebyGoCJCjeq6=61Yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 21:26:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYhan5PtpZmR1pD_GGWr3OQf2_ZeC5L3kOnX7bKkRqbcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brandon Long <blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d3c4505b0804e94"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/LaJQ2ZxUOrHlMQgc1kSaPe7G8Uw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Objections to Sender header as override
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:26:46 -0000

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:55 PM Brandon Long <blong=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Shouldn't be separate as defined:
> The Sender header proposal is also an adjunct directly to DMARC itself,
> changing the existing dmarc policy evaluation in a direct way.  I don't
> think that should be done by a separate spec, if we do decide to, it should
> be part of the DMARC spec itself, especially so we can explore all the ways
> that it changes the existing spec.  I agree with others who have said that
> adding this makes DMARC not DMARC, though I'm willing to explore that in
> more depth.  I understand Dave's points regarding user level signals, but I
> think alignment benefits in other ways.
>

The intended status of the document is Experimental.  My assumption from
that is that we (the community at large) should go try this and see if it's
effective.  If it is, it's up for consideration to be folded into the
DMARCbis work.

This is the method proposed for the PSD document as well, and it has the
same status.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email