IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Sun, 31 March 2024 03:00 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 2D9F1C14F5F3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_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 1s6k7iGyPxN8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:00:02 -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 0A76FC14F5E9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:00:01 -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=62HLtJYb1VFvdV+FSUZY+Eg7X3HaF/W5EzOdPA7kkcg=; b=GzMTjsnUuhczXOu3mhLOhIUlGU 8Zz2sJQ3Ru6uW673Zhgd8H0kQaxRqylQkexBTKKGVPhLgwhnN+rZ4xNAgmzwMJr/2TFLem2U9uws0 I2MbPKb3Ib7ETdqTAFR0dLMkxtv86BshGtjV3+l63bOJ20/hD3Z+8IatdJV3eLubb6yk=;
Received: from [2601:647:6801:6430:79ea:229:ba17:b341] (helo=[10.10.20.233]) 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 1rqlQC-0003Yh-4A; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:59:57 -0700
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:59:56 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5852)
Message-ID: <604AFE6B-0573-46FB-97C1-560349D2FEE6@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1f08e8fa-e747-c8be-2041-83c4935ab6d1@iecc.com>
References: <F5158C76-BD86-4540-965D-F0D8664B6CD9@bluepopcorn.net> <85761761-ad6a-2a19-da82-344ed52c2391@iecc.com> <B4365E6E-00DF-425E-9974-6EE1DE057319@bluepopcorn.net> <CAL0qLwb9Wnv5Wv5U88S6Mu3Zod9RHx1u-0pihQ_vFE38=7jqPA@mail.gmail.com> <1f08e8fa-e747-c8be-2041-83c4935ab6d1@iecc.com>
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/R_mkqI96MSUFrxmuGAmCFl1Y2Ks>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 03:00:06 -0000

On 30 Mar 2024, at 17:13, John R. Levine wrote:

>> I concur with Jim that rewriting strategies are in scope for the WG
>> according to its charter, especially if we have something to recommend
>> going forward.
>
> Our advice is not to publish a DMARC policy if you want to use mailing lists.  We have a lot of experience with message rewriting and I think we have all found that the options range from pretty bad to really bad, so there's nothing to recommend.

“Our advice” seems not to be followed by many domains sending to this mailing list, including several significant providers of email products/services.

-Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email