Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sat, 05 December 2020 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 047993A0E95 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:59:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RsvhVJivcne6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (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 3F3583A0E96 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id l23so5309873pjg.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=/DvoNnxzYQ7+eaehvN09oJf9JgI279tjNyV13c5Us9U=; b=pyOhAVec2eOkbYNX/99Z5WMXaXNBBrJKDWL+MSNKjfFetBAOPMVGAO8n5q4h1EOD7J zxveHROol1diGc+lMhr7xto3GOhongW/FpGBFFS5V+mc5NcyfgjrZs/yznrXQIBAarBZ fKTfl3GAjO7jscIqfEU4qET27aaXiGA1KWGfjfM5+Jb8o3i/Nd4uIf+/IXNApJSWmBrM kXe3RJPpwg1vmEz6/5e/lapId5Z5bY8Mui7Rj7T4FgLwvxydygZVo7u1PCXIkUJYesrP uTn+9oqFdLZ3PJttN7ULx2oEpjpkMqVsoEZSReSL/oJ51qKdKxH7nXDFHAdYUNJe8xjA 20vQ==
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=/DvoNnxzYQ7+eaehvN09oJf9JgI279tjNyV13c5Us9U=; b=rmTbr/9fuX+hQTD2siRppM6fKeDEG1i8LJ4ZGoZAcNcYL2GpNRZSlJWKM/lfkDjB1T DsA42uWj40EUXscIdl78gZvMWqiW5k+ui0k3UkQuDGlJdNO4D+DuoQPU0VN3b75Yxg+r W8ubAQ9Ou1f0J44nLzSZWyTTylqQfcgphvbw/GYW+Ype5Hq67Z7CWmt5c159KFRx2Lqy JUMG1xQhWG7zjfG7E2PyNEBHLSMHvL3S4lrEs+zPQkh8Ka/kf0OLz0wuWWMlJSZBQQud mpqtEkrpAPlUU6QdkJOScGXAjGWJ8ua44etfBxVNFl++erun2Tx70+d84+YT9O6H+gJ8 mQXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/Qcse6wgJluz4ZPdDj8eL+nCuc7IcHpxMMT6YJE9djORhzJ2U D4dh3cFGei8k2z7iak2ap3KpwNbAIwoVpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0ZDc8DCnBgIl1YA1x09yA5UxQ7ZvmtGxwPWEmTe6KF67bFAJBJvVwV1gLjcrT5UC6Qdte9g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:b029:d6:ad52:ffab with SMTP id c8-20020a170902b688b02900d6ad52ffabmr9920833pls.61.1607212759209; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h12sm8106805pgf.49.2020.12.05.15.59.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:18 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy> <b437a23a-7e7e-f70d-04dc-49810d002c43@mtcc.com> <CADyWQ+G7_fiGkwzinN0o+U_kqKCvEx+MsoGxjzU7+0xL48jfpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <bb99df15-8aa7-4ffc-7420-f4e3f7baf2a0@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:59:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+G7_fiGkwzinN0o+U_kqKCvEx+MsoGxjzU7+0xL48jfpg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B5B0290A253484A6D41AD752"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/RGHKaVO2x1nTsz-p6LrcJHgEqEs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:59:22 -0000

On 12/5/20 3:49 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Michael
>
> I don't see john's comments as ad hominem.  He's describing how his 
> mail system interprets mail flow.
>
> But I do think a lot of this discussion is getting into very 
> esoteric cases.
> I'd suggest trying to put your thoughts into a draft we can sit and 
> chew on.

Wow, you don't see the last line as questioning my intelligence? The two 
of them have been tag teaming me to get me thrown off of here since I 
returned just like they did on the DKIM list which I finally left 
because it wasn't worth their nastiness. I'll probably do the same here 
since the chairs seem to not care about their continuing hostility, but 
I will always have the fact that myself and two others created and wrote 
DKIM well before IETF came into the picture and the politics and credit 
seeking personalities it brings.

Mike


>
> Tim
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>     > In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com
>     <mailto:dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com>> you write:
>     >> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new
>     >> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail.
>     If I want
>     >> you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an
>     acceptable
>     >> place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like
>     >> reject-except-valid-arc.
>     > Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system
>     >
>     > a) I don't believe you.
>     >
>     > 2) I don't care.
>     >
>     > I think you will find this reaction pretty common.
>     >
>     > I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I
>     described
>     > for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the
>     only way
>     > to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC
>     > policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even
>     need ARC
>     > for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect
>     > routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to.
>     >
>     > You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY
>     mean
>     > it, but see 2) above.
>     >
>
>     Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even
>     responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem.
>
>     And  your anecdotal evidence drawn from a tiny system is very suspect.
>
>     Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmarc mailing list
>     dmarc@ietf.org <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>
>