Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 01:51 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 5FE433A074E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:51:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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 NxbGeK6knHCi for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (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 14EAE3A0656 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id hk16so5378664pjb.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:51:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=wLG2kuVKQAt8P3xoFh7X/tAYSgMZfxVt6imME82QyWo=; b=YqziekG9aDZG6dIAP631Ef9/0OjjeT00i0NClAouWynHFn3/K/fYQxYXbuyDh5wFw5 Q0niSHJz3v6lFz+47fnLLXNoSzLvkgiwTd6NYi3VNjYMABAb7Kx1sRAPObImYZ3aLDOO Z9ySrZ53m1thB9c54Oi1+afBIcmfY8kABLtc4o1B8tvh61gdImL6ZsDqgcsFKLrJXUjm 4VU307UBOUTsl4ICRP1+O6iTS++CimPObaUuTLq6zuhqgNa7Xao1ui3plKaIMpWKYiwU N/Vq8bOExzoee/vZDPGEg+JzYY7CX+5qr++bdvUHAJW0Blxj8fYhpW/WD5w6hfcZb70K FAYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=wLG2kuVKQAt8P3xoFh7X/tAYSgMZfxVt6imME82QyWo=; b=phv95QxGn2Pu9BKJZzkb/z+dD2PwFEYLQnnpGPCl/oyCC20qfCHsumETrvYKYp1xro 6vfD7iAx1MBn54tvH7hSoweRqfRkGWU+OwoFMfJpHbkGf5R64dq1VTtug0R/zRmM1Suf h/FqaYWAOjAyUqfdn2LCH+Rp8t8i5oYY0kYAWL6kvb4vCbwqGkFlHp+EeBSF53VWiPhf MzMXzBnsbL3EN/xb0X5ffV9TuGIM/DX/Qi5U2XA0vkP4I/gUw2ssaj0qS821j/zNC71R DoeGP36tD9/r8BIrzLiHC7IsO/tfxfGxaqk5F/BrFk1CvN86AoUjOkkaGJR7RtOADp4L fRwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531a1XwsTSLWFRh7JUpUuUMrVZUG1QIHz1ZjjLgVp1pNE3mMnzfx a4Uj2kzKAs11fVVHLajk4AAxQfWnyHK2HA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/l6Bpao7M8p6PqVWk0+tDgttz1U+1C+2SVXVAEaOpgRuW/kd0tHORBUhA/gH6sAO4IpZyng==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8ec4:b029:d7:eb0d:84c0 with SMTP id x4-20020a1709028ec4b02900d7eb0d84c0mr9946660plo.23.1607219516196; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q5sm6088059pjg.4.2020.12.05.17.51.55 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:51:55 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201206014800.26A202910056@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <635ac274-fdc7-219c-3e62-2c931a1bc265@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:51:54 -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: <20201206014800.26A202910056@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TKgdPjGcs4EgsJvFx1Or3m22pKU>
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 01:51:58 -0000

On 12/5/20 5:47 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <cb526017-c198-44f1-7282-986e5a810d6a@gmail.com> you write:
>> The domain owner might want all sorts of unreasonable things. Having a
>> way to let the domain owner publish demands that are widely ignored
>> indicates a seriously flawed semantic model. And that is, indeed, the
>> current reality for DMARC.
> Thanks. Lest anyone think this is a new issue, see this message I sent
> to the DKIM list in 2006, fourteen years ago:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/CBsHbUVtM512vgiwljiA6dtVJ1Q/#
>
> I reprised it six years ago in 2014:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ngPmSfa0b_B5Q72G1JwzGG2IYKY/

because a domain owner might want an unreasonable thing doesn't imply 
that a domain owner can't want a reasonable thing. this is a logical 
fallacy designed to dismiss any request as unreasonable.


Mike