IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 28 April 2023 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 65326C151551 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="IDquzLaU"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="TdXeRsqs"
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 eHzqHmHJiSlU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 47C10C151535 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4F7F80295; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:16 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1682650501; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=+AAxsiqgzFDT4yGZyssLpuSmX1ixw03tjHIhhGDhILY=; b=IDquzLaUT7nim9eKTxL2rVREiXlIbuXroKvNaL7cYCeZPTaXjDTW3mccEOOJxFY4fux0G 7jcGKlrVxqmxVakBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1682650501; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=+AAxsiqgzFDT4yGZyssLpuSmX1ixw03tjHIhhGDhILY=; b=TdXeRsqszNdzYGyC6h2qyhT2/M1VGwa+G+9E5lEbKSz/hu5+E3FxKcpjwl/BTI/3iJJUv SddgVNpPG9MSOSVtswDhpUiRS8LdOVuAfW2GdfXZUIMfmsVyFz1D4BP7tvyP2nymwKESny4 RFSpMlHVQ79gmIGK15ARgNK/6+If1WJimQNGYFVdju8Ibq1xB6To1XD+pp0qbkgU0QuYm3+ 4hsQvQYsBGUxt6L1GlB8JFnZ4zh3WnqZbOgoRC5fHD04c/ztqZqPJbh7TmC7EhUh6FSoKeV gAbOfqQMRAKHKoHHM1ULSU9bFQm7nhV9N2Whxty8vCMT0jpLiTzdrOYUWWPg==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13E6AF8014A; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:54:54 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <e40a5fcf-ba0a-45ef-85eb-2ce063004cba@app.fastmail.com>
References: <20230426160609.8532BC586620@ary.qy> <B08C7AD1-B14B-43FC-BE85-DFBD5282A8DB@bluepopcorn.net> <BF125E76-EAEF-468B-93F2-3318736F932F@kitterman.com> <MN2PR11MB43511D3478D3682AABD35969F76A9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0db5e3fd-68cf-22ad-7c63-e1c1d5debe14@tana.it> <479b6be4-c080-4826-9384-1bd02ce78e3f@app.fastmail.com> <e40a5fcf-ba0a-45ef-85eb-2ce063004cba@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <62F9992E-B7BE-47B8-B35E-EB05CB9BE9EC@kitterman.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/UMywycPcDRUr7gvyWP4bRdLo3eQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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, 28 Apr 2023 02:55:30 -0000


On April 28, 2023 2:49:48 AM UTC, Jesse Thompson <zjt@fastmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> Also, state that serious consideration includes testing p=quarantine; pct=0^H t=y.
>> 
>> I was going to say something similar but I think that it is implied by section A.7
>
>Actually, I like referencing A.7 here as a pointer.
>
>This achieves consensus on the rewrite objection. 
>
>A.7 describes the rewrite without condoning it:
>
>   Operational experience showed ...
>   ... header rewriting by an
>   intermediary meant that a Domain Owner's aggregate reports could
>   reveal to the Domain Owner how much of its traffic was routing
>   through intermediaries that don't rewrite the RFC5322.From header

I think we can describe what people are doing without placing a strong value judgement on it, but I think we have to say we haven't assessed all the associated interoperability impacts of it and at least mention that 5321 says not to do it.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email