Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Thu, 04 April 2024 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 6459FC1519A0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:04:10 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRqbMZ62Z6BP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22b.google.com (mail-oi1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECD01C14F705 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3c36f882372so751501b6e.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712257320; x=1712862120; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9L6YArRWtMX9duPDIYACb8Q4S1XEzTsNnYr+5TNPVoc=; b=G1HjzabMXJ6pKzWThD7DabWwyIjIGAcBwvuGU0EQXEn5MYMNN78SdztrUaGWP1kamO YMjhGgZfHsFVqDgoMc7Fp8oUUg426TzOua9lIeZDS9BD0n+8Rd4UYO8LsY9Y2SZwuKoF l4FUfTR1L0HxWPm+JHt7UjJ254wN4rs00X45dHfas0R1adhGxmAp34kfTFA9w6uJN2XP FOdwo1YKV5QdU58kGmnv73r+GROzC0O6cl1K+PMKXVY7dw8Z3k1E2cWGLPFubRp3CgoT PAqGDLrrxTUBPa2qgU8iYC+uM98X7xJxIR3t9SzhHyYlEQwEA8ZKnwwB7Gr4NQhKppwA +KZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712257320; x=1712862120; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9L6YArRWtMX9duPDIYACb8Q4S1XEzTsNnYr+5TNPVoc=; b=umtNHHM0OUI+T3oWXZY7TtUeKFHq6+dYsYJgYPxquxFUpm0h7VO4tPpR0mYg0Ljp9D rm1wJXmgE8ZLpv2VquySS/hZysazDFeCUam9amYuJKyXuM5KHrlKZyN5oPQLPhM0BoQ6 EgjfCyWsZdS1+UsRPkWh2HQp6aY/VSG3pUai1SHZVBCWgf6A8UI08YS/EAPieAuUVlPB mO/pfjP1MJgnUeyGF6r34DoptR3Aslvk6jL0ws1mOnMzWs/mTy8eTObcuyzn9/mI2ak/ 2cp7zY9ZY5czTZkLJTBBJf9u0zOr6/nXxZoHekUS2UQDTIeLGhdJYaFwlPkIHvRnlUwh JqWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz/Sp3i11gt34VYXaWNLuRtaL2LnwtWbDo9cimjL2HaR5FIAvTi GrJW0IdB82WpBpPLh84nh78V47uRzaU2DMj+DJPdWvePrHW3mrbUFCXvk4qAV3zaIiqvK5Cp+VV UpzkXAZkW9/7Hf3GgI/G8peP+GoMWmpoLw1E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGRFykI17hT6fh81ZsnTPQ3TaJNdmv75RDLAysTd8xdG99uh5308kjrXDx5H795qlzx0dWECYpeee+ACl4SR7w=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:51:b0:3c3:a892:3852 with SMTP id v17-20020a056808005100b003c3a8923852mr351683oic.16.1712257320101; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CFEA2796-9213-4847-836B-81E8770973F5@bluepopcorn.net> <5208da1b-ecfb-4d41-8506-a734a27ab3a0@tana.it> <CAL0qLwbnSe77Wdt+M8bi2pBmZFCZjDUQc6je9bjCzP5TQ0N6XA@mail.gmail.com> <49859572-18a4-483b-bb99-62c1c231896e@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZc6idmMra11pVx2bbtk2Em9-vy6+962M7jDWOMnP+UHQ@mail.gmail.com> <1ee6df39-a622-4060-83db-bcc9a7a835d4@tana.it> <CAL0qLwYX_D7S_-Vn9RwwRzwyNO=8=3UVqbP8rz3SCWG4dvGZig@mail.gmail.com> <f5f55a39-127d-4a84-a66b-950379ecb013@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZzfnDA=7bwCu26S1SJPEE3hBq929674hH6naKXWuyh5g@mail.gmail.com> <ebf343ed-ee60-47b0-a02f-8518a8369bb0@tana.it> <CAL0qLwagtzjYYJmyyGpMeMTtKLtYyk_JjagkXGtscvN61kSDbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfyKE6n2Q_GfW8oZv9y=MxOBV8sRPPMPV8akHdu6W_jn1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbt7A-9dUGphs5KLUhygYEd+4aY4Jr10efKpHZXAqMfmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbt7A-9dUGphs5KLUhygYEd+4aY4Jr10efKpHZXAqMfmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 15:01:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYc5HYHE0EGhFw9jef3JXPQ5HKdUoZf8RD+YqzepHsWFmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054343d061549f9fd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/SRSzAgYi5IHCR_OB2PLCyZhZmsg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 19:04:10 -0000

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:42 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:21 AM Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Murray, I was hoping your proposal to advance ARC was serious.
>>
>
> If people think (and have evidence that) ARC is ready, then why would I
> not be serious?
>
> The WG needs to resolve that "if" though.
>

A while back in the working group I asked people to provide data showing
the efficacy of ARC. The response was crickets. What I see now is a bunch
of hand waving but again, no data that can be evaluated. I am not against
ARC but it needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is a separate
document and should not be conflated with DMARC. I'll also point out that
WGLC is the inappropriate time to throw something new in the hopper, "just
because".


>
>
>> To Ale's concerns, I think a registration process would help mailing
>> lists, but there are many options, and we do not need to define one single
>> solution.   Most of the mailbox providers already have a registration
>> process for bulk senders, with a feedback loop for problem situations.  I
>> see plenty of opportunity for them to build on that.
>>
>
> This also needs to be described if we think that's a part of the solution.
>

Again, WGLC is not the appropriate time to start throwing out new and
undocumented proposals.

>
> My overall point is that this thread makes it seem like we're not putting
> forward a complete solution.  It feels a lot more like a proposed standard
> that for its clear success depends on a bunch of other things that range
> from experimental to abstract to undefined.  And if that's a correct
> summary, I'm asking if that's what we really want to do.  It seems a little
> haphazard, like we're scrambling to tie together the loose ends of a movie
> plot.  We need to do a good job of bringing our audience to as solid a
> conclusion as possible, or the critics' reviews might not come out well.
>

My response to your statement "... this thread makes it seem like we're not
putting forward a complete solution." is a complete solution to what? It
seems like people are trying to throw in everything but the kitchen sink,
including new proposals and rehashing old issues that were supposedly
settled, as we go through last call.

Michael Hammer