Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy overrides

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 C7DAE21F9B9D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYpYxELVDqDF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CC321F9B9B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC0D20E40C2; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 01:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1372828125; bh=WebKCx9GTjCrZqowhu6SxB2sGjAShWKr5nGoy08a6o8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DMOue0N3bodv5WVU3d1yNx46c0n9hBwTIuN78Pjd8NrUeMw2r1+tP5D0He5m33oLQ ZSOZq09tU+wEyG4gW4yi4To4BMA9GF/d2pe5tM9mCQOfJgLYd080JCDMtFwugBzqtr WkNYfLROBF4UrqsUipGKFPph1YP+y/cDR3t+eSz0=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A22DB20E40A6; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 01:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 01:08:43 -0400
Message-ID: <2144478.q9Cq7UVjAO@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Linux/3.8.0-25-generic; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51D39361.2010201@gmail.com>
References: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE533DD678@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> <1458562.mnNGVq3FHH@scott-latitude-e6320> <51D39361.2010201@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC policy overrides
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 03 Jul 2013 05:08:51 -0000

On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 07:58:41 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/2/2013 2:53 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> >If someone thinks the text is not sufficiently clear about what is
> >> >specified to do or why, we know how to fix that.  As for/whether/  to do
> >> >it, again, one can choose to live within DMARC or...
> > 
> > Ah, so DMARC is what it's defined as, so by definition any suggestion that
> > it should be changed is incorrect.
> 
> 1. Your logic is flawed to the point of silliness and the conclusion you
> invented is simple and completely wrong.
> 
> 2. You have yet to indicate what technical work needs to be done on the
> specification and, for extra points, indicate who else wants that work done.

I have, you're not listening, so I'm done.

Scott K