IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Thu, 27 April 2023 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 112B5C1519B5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 mqY-gE5M89nj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (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 28A07C151987 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=mjxy8k61plN2XA8xcDoaU3n2NSbuPg7XtdVWOLrGRl4=; b=T1VyCE+6ho3FV1/G8H9515+l8X mR1PgStbHvr5xzU22TQlgIDOtKvz9/g3WQkH73A0B0BD9pYJdj7dJXQ1ABZS/JfkTlOAfkmjVhjeg AVjxi4uc3OijILszfXKVaV3AYrUCuro4EyVypbc6Vjo836zmpzgjAgwfp6YLV+4YncBo=;
Received: from [2600:380:c048:cddd:e54e:477c:42dc:a412] (helo=[172.20.10.3]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1prrRD-0000w6-D1; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:32:51 -0700
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, sklist@kitterman.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 19:32:49 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5852)
Message-ID: <B08C7AD1-B14B-43FC-BE85-DFBD5282A8DB@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230426160609.8532BC586620@ary.qy>
References: <20230426160609.8532BC586620@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/OHL16LBz7WiAtpSRLEOnwEzeVrs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:32:57 -0000

On 26 Apr 2023, at 9:06, John Levine wrote:

> It seems to me there are two somewhat different kinds of DMARC damange
> that we might separate. One is what happens on discussion lists, where
> messages get lost and in the process unrelated recipients get
> unsubscribed. The other is simple forwarding and send-to-a-friend
> which gets lost but is less likely to cause problems for the
> recipients beyond not getting the mail they want.

Isn’t (in the latter case) the recipients not getting the mail they want exactly an interoperability problem?

-Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email