[dmarc-ietf] Criteria for changes, was A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 18 January 2021 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D7E3A03C9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:20:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3MZRF50CvO_L for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it []) (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 B1B853A0332 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:20:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611001234; bh=ETksIB8foOUD3AF9dEUXiF4CqQ+i1edOXNCjcxv5p9s=; l=1030; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DSk/+unijn25qWxBHtnVJtCVNB1g1gU6L6eDZhEWE35vXfAbznPdwZakBWBwYw2eH EfZn4oeNCvgPtCfR3DnDLgwsikVCrb6EKKEDUoG5Ic2dkhMl9Zv91sNkdGdn+HQ14W e2b92Dbtdft83bZwBjqCwCjqC5d0mcODZ2hbKFO6sISTEd0H0ZzEA1MGRCm3K
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [] ([]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0C3.000000006005ED92.00000C69; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:20:34 +0100
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>, dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20210117213536.165266B2315E@ary.qy> <8b8b3304-80f5-7287-aee8-e86ff72dcd31@tana.it> <7e5b91cc-8ca8-6f7f-4c3e-83e13a85c61d@taugh.com> <fad5eb1c-8cea-e061-fb57-a7e5538d281a@tana.it> <128070e1-25e2-ed76-e4cb-a54ef746b02@taugh.com> <7a13ec60-8d17-0d80-2f55-a5a262689897@tana.it> <CAJ4XoYfvRQ2KguDBsfWGqHH3-hKYBi9vCf=n6Afu8muJLjuOyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <4a88860d-4b41-b271-d93e-dfa7c3628f41@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:20:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYfvRQ2KguDBsfWGqHH3-hKYBi9vCf=n6Afu8muJLjuOyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NCGX64iTfVMnRMQDpK4G-n01MYM>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Criteria for changes, was A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none
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: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:20:39 -0000

On Mon 18/Jan/2021 20:17:31 +0100 Dotzero wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:14 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>> On Mon 18/Jan/2021 19:56:21 +0100 John Levine wrote:
>>>> BTW, the current spec does not mean that an invalid p= implies the
>>>> DMARC record is broken.  If it did, it wouldn't say to check rua= in
>>>> that case.
>>> I know.  It would have been better if it didn't say that, but it's too
>>> late to change it now.
>> I don't understand why you say it's too late.  This is not emailcore,
>> and we don't risk getting back to proposed standard if we change too much.
>> We're just writing a proposed standard.  When choosing between a
>> better spec and sticking to the existing one what criteria are we
>> complying with?
> You are assuming facts not in evidence, namely that your proposal results
> in a better standard.

Not my proposal.  John said "it would have been better if...

In general, why are we trying to minimize changes?