Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 AA22E3A100D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:59:48 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 htY2QVCyPIPt for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 24CC23A1032 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id j1so3979480pld.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:59:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=TQjHZp6cQIdItcP3IWNsOOPeJ9+OlCMyjHctDQ5WXAA=; b=og0kSHb+dvW7YC9yxb/0AamLQmdOxx9joxbM9Ub0bgV9wAc42hQpF+KHcXf9GxSnFO 9flmJsuLR2/3y3Qw0IQjfq1uEzfSTJO9rwEJF7PnaKPs9Wazwg2uI8VMD2+d7jVxdZXX f3ooBczswsp1COopp6FGcaiKpgml+9eL++cyAfdJXzlmXZg6JEGT9G/5AJWM4QuyJAo7 UY4zJvbkPtfYYCtoGbVJ05ZKeDWkZA1+WEIaGyZZnk9YhZXTGnbexANhnyLDPQaIvwQO cnUsJhiu4jZ0YUtuU2a3zQG+PJzsmrXGQO8H8x1ohyQrCKtDYdCeqYzVuODWdhgpU6zr HDnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=TQjHZp6cQIdItcP3IWNsOOPeJ9+OlCMyjHctDQ5WXAA=; b=lze+JlnFn+Hj7ZWVvxbRhiSGOZ2SMCkws/dbI1k0mEBL2qJlPV6xEg0GMTHKBebQUz Nr+8+yMU6MVWmUVzERkLlqRxUgzcvceA6FzajlxEWd0mY9iV/X554yBthnCB+gzx0DSi CXlDO2EpFcnvlT2UHH/Vp6I/CSqXsZP2ReurlwXK55BFraJEJ/Lykw5s0FcF3I9qVx+s Ksz4yRrvuzLwkOa9ZBug3nXthgBZ2z846MfvHlrmP80sFLzv/GSTTHrvGelCSRP8U23D MJj93DnRUUEzevCMzBcP8jN0wy74O9Swo0Dj8UPbcmIGz4VsvRHHIVG9deq3rxcqI/Pt g54Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Om/cHX/s6CWfSSJCpKVExnqLacywPQbizJd9dTsySOEDozSaL uOAOubgUfEZiDo+kZcX9heLjsl6Q1rw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3i18KVq3QkpyIlbM2/MESWkhVhhSeEjv583B3U6+DR4BqCmw20yVBHc29raFKliXDA4xqiQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7d08:: with SMTP id g8mr6100403pjl.180.1607122786439; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.62.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm6253544pfh.9.2020.12.04.14.59.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:59:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com> <7224575d-685f-5020-073e-c1880acecc88@mtcc.com> <7e459496-61f8-ddcd-713c-3b6be448090c@gmail.com> <2cecceac-1add-44ec-6e16-e157fee293fe@mtcc.com> <5a577765-4a0d-e1bf-5321-dfeff19d107e@gmail.com> <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6fae9ca6-d8ea-1d62-4156-249191029cc3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:59:44 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CE61089C4B620C23C8891AB2"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ONzh4IRmOn_bNmx7cBpzX0FvsdA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:59:56 -0000

On 12/4/2020 2:51 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/documents/
>>
> What changed in the bis version to change its intended status? 

There is a 'History' button to click on that page, to answer that question.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org