Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 15 April 2023 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 A3BA2C15155A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="uHZcmtMZ"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="AxgdFuX9"
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 9ZTvXd3fR8k9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740DAC15154C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1681576164; bh=YyCBMABmR7OuBxqJlLUhS1oslIFoK3r57gjxm0JTg/s=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=uHZcmtMZh6DB9DK8ElyqvXR511IwQerbgI5rcG7KQfXmKB7OxDBNXqTD2B2iv4Tuf p/OpnLF9MLGKKLK6mnpDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1681576164; bh=YyCBMABmR7OuBxqJlLUhS1oslIFoK3r57gjxm0JTg/s=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=AxgdFuX9X36wgME/uI/+1O+RJoqfyC4CZawWzWnYGoPrllngFq5wtFQhhGH3ytfaB Oje51IyfJu/43+sdIu9Fe2sfW9FScg0Uyawb97XqaSG9PGtSKuPjBwT0AnWl8zvo3D i5PNh+cxgflnWKG1nT7pV7DO5ZSnb7c09PYOtjvGRodmcUHbRXWz+W8cZsYNX
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0FF.00000000643AD0E4.00006425; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:29:24 +0200
Message-ID: <7114fea5-7d71-05ed-5f24-f1b8ebbb4bd2@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:29:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwZc2X7tyP+_8vvL3Yb7uJk6td3XGbsXUB68BNUEMhV4yQ@mail.gmail.com> <5C458C5C-0C20-4B4D-9887-160B3048BD4B@kitterman.com> <25563237-24d2-9e4f-c468-4daf8e2c339c@tana.it> <3671459.v085TlSqb9@localhost>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <3671459.v085TlSqb9@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NZWF8W9uHPYwyegVftysUfJYw98>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs
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: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:29:36 -0000

On Sat 15/Apr/2023 18:10:08 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 11:45:34 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sat 15/Apr/2023 16:42:32 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> On April 15, 2023 1:55:59 PM UTC, Jesse Thompson <zjt@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>>>And the "If a mailing list would like to provide the best customer 
>>>>experience...MUST rewrite" suggestion seems like a reasonable way out of 
>>>>this "interoperability vs reality" standoff.  How about if I soften it up 
>>>>further:
>>>>
>>>>"Any sender (mailing list, forwarder, ESP, or otherwise) which is tasked 
>>>>to send unauthenticated email from an address within a 
>>>>p=reject|quarantine domain it MUST refuse to send the message or send the 
>>>>message using an RFC5322.from address in a different domain."
>>>
>>> That kind of customer experience guidance isn't what goes in an IETF 
>>> protocol specification with normative language.  There can, and probably 
>>> should be, some discussion about that in an appendix, but without the 
>>> MUSTard.
>>>
>>> As I recently mentioned in another thread, the From rewriting trick is 
>>> explicitly contrary to MUST NOT language in RFC 5321 on mailing lists. 
>>> We should quit pretending it's in scope as a component of DMARCbis and 
>>> move on.
>>
>> I hope they amend that passage.  There are several shortcomings in that
>> section.  By the same argument, MLMs shouldn't add List-* header field
>> either.
> 
> Perhaps, but I don't think the fact that when RFC 2321 was updated, they
> didn't make explicit provisions for RFC 2919 and perhaps should have, gives us
> any wiggle room around the fact that From is the one field in the header that
> is specifically called out as not being changed.


That's right.  Yet, that's what everyone does hitting «forward» on a MUA.  Such 
action is indeed exemplified as what a mediator does not do in RFC 5598, near 
the beginning of Section 5.  We're slightly changing Internet mail architecture.

Best
Ale
--