IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 08 March 2024 09:52 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 06524C14F686 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 01:52:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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="Y//hvbRy"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="BySEPN6W"
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 rvEMIQxivLT5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 01:52:32 -0800 (PST)
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 5A7F5C14F61A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 01:52:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1709891546; bh=FRHbj6l1tZ9izsBb9c2BHOqTfqKEz21Pn8+o08ngG1E=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Y//hvbRyUhVsTOlxz9tHp9jvauhFn5LRtbf7TCe/HD3Ebgpp6pM9uTVyQJSUhD3q/ WT/eQf5y2+ugkcP96dBBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1709891546; bh=FRHbj6l1tZ9izsBb9c2BHOqTfqKEz21Pn8+o08ngG1E=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BySEPN6WHRANF0wxjpGGjcJBAa/BGywuPvf1cON2VVD7Qe/bT5KkT3O6JcVQ8Yry7 8Zk7IupGlLsKx0tUFBJvKd4AoaaHk4tODU+kdQXFNmzd1CgJmqyF048KKHsu7f4tno N2atMJYCLNtMRla1PTTdxbeVrfifw2X1eKLrHl2l9WsRU7Q0TLtBggHohP8tn
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (93-33-71-189.ip43.fastwebnet.it [93.33.71.189]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0E7.0000000065EADFD9.00003F6A; Fri, 08 Mar 2024 10:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <296a2070-922b-445a-9181-ec95f6a2d60c@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 10:52:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, it
To: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAHej_8k_6CWH=iOFCwYr02eAnGsXRtb+cuAffPMEBS87RONgeg@mail.gmail.com> <BB63C6A6-2B5F-4C06-AEC0-25949716E4DA@kitterman.com> <CAHej_8k3eBQVk-R9Mrd0k0Jw8QXvZuYcOxmQiZrNjn4=o1EeyQ@mail.gmail.com> <3D8C0167-1BDC-4FE9-875E-09E0023177D8@kitterman.com> <CAOZAAfPfM-0utvO9aiMV4NYvQmbq_rx+GgYKNP6mp0-zGQ7Urg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYeohikMOQX+7v=UMeZDryB1=4y71EQcEJrz8kgk1uZjeQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ADA05DF-183F-47A8-919F-F4C3D1848888@kitterman.com> <CAOZAAfNk5ifXz=rzv_iQmkphp9LnCbdmsTfkcN2Q2ho4JNeg6g@mail.gmail.com> <40642B68-8694-47D6-B50B-A45270B6E163@kitterman.com> <CAOZAAfN9xBnyci6N0_e6vcC6HDgVcKzXa9zuYWTK2NyQ46gFAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYpHwq1vW0UUDAJ=+P9C2OBqorexHc4c4Pvwk=5zx=qcA@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+YGkLxv5Egv3mdOj1--KgPwdBG+dQ-oLp=puyzuPTg5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8=F4XZwFGA2_=8RGnZXgPuw4vukoBL4OD1cxMqGJqx_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=F4XZwFGA2_=8RGnZXgPuw4vukoBL4OD1cxMqGJqx_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QMoM5YJSxOEXd7FvB1Ehj7Luo3g>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Significant(ish) Issue - Section 7.6
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: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 09:52:40 -0000

On 06/03/2024 15:42, Todd Herr wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:45 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> SHOULD NOT was the consensus call, and the correction Todd 
>> proposes is just making that sentence consistent with that.


Yet, Section 7.6 still has:

    In particular, this document makes explicit that domains for general-
    purpose email MUST NOT deploy a DMARC policy of p=reject.


Best
Ale
--

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status