IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A-R results for DMARC

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 483643A0408 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Q1KC6vwRvIHZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x930.google.com (mail-ua1-x930.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]) (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 A41843A03F3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x930.google.com with SMTP id y21so1107825uag.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:37:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pLt2q0lwcDSpRrLb3jgfRY12khuaM5wr6ATs5ch+ikc=; b=vSvHhmY58Eei8IQ52wgH8+/tTbaFrSklvObFjJZSavtegHbeXNNp+/707o1kq+tpMK ElG5Ko8Den8oZIi03pZpQl9cD5fpAGBMqsa7No/9GXWhlawxYI/mCosIN59BxhEByG0n rqr+cHL+J6pVHLd1/a2SKBKntMsvNMsNsQBSBft/pshPaNUPtFeM7UGLwIPXCxQuo4w5 18VOV4KMFvSAOWQQQynNiqglMRzBp/9M3OpDagPbeerQnK1RhW0nXWypsDrChV7meQbN d94RIaNJKfAcVYQT4Bn57bkoqEILjvsHnivFWVtvwGvfimVKrBqWfwWA4haNTsgcstwB IhUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pLt2q0lwcDSpRrLb3jgfRY12khuaM5wr6ATs5ch+ikc=; b=DqagxhfHmbjYsvC7QlrmGM7tcYlZxNdTIjuPjAF60qI3yNzpgp3a+vEIB9at7meAxI Q+T/1nihcV/iV3qvDqcogcOLWihcucWjL9RRb2lW+ol5SZsenxAlFXpZX3eqOlUnj1fD oOCU6G4QLaMBSybsmw5eyRwGOjzXLZdfgsX4z5UPD8oXK0WeCQTqHHbpFtY/pRMLPGEB aAxlca4H2ixs79gAvbZIrOrTM12cYqCqsqbTpVXasOhsC58fDPIya2Jb+st7+HVPdoNz GFHhSI5O+3/QsRXwEDijA6OkkrGYq0O1e4LMwHrZLCX+FjTOx8qBHLm5TC3zwpgvO3tn R4/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wIhvPf2DQC4l/TyrutZXYV6SMmACahTajFnLMWdmp9zwx1RlL /pjJrxJMFAabqtwCUaMlbNJ6Z1HKjlto3m7/0QAMHheGyGAj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJTWXX6dmDL4Iev19ek68mF4EZeX6DxKTI5ENqyIqpmRaOZalYzRB4OuyKEzCLidh8snziZmhEVdBaTNjSyBU=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:486:: with SMTP id 6mr4587699uaw.6.1607557051107; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:37:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201208031609.C8CC52926414@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwYmweiS_bX85L4=ipXXR+AnJo9EX4NnXMAzi6HmfMir5A@mail.gmail.com> <b8d63e53-d7fe-73f1-859e-88136ebe8564@taugh.com> <CABa8R6uKcEkh7id-TM-DwfGT6iBA5sdCEDzudhjDLKA1BSSCbw@mail.gmail.com> <a581e19d-76c1-ab10-7daf-1808323a3023@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <a581e19d-76c1-ab10-7daf-1808323a3023@mtcc.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:37:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6sy9wyv+2OkKjF2U9QBf6jZDP+mBEWtRuDHWtnuJO4MJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fd625b05b6108a80"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UVWhOssFJVhpYAVgB0YYuU9reVY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A-R results for DMARC
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 23:37:34 -0000

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:27 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/8/20 4:51 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:31 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> > The original intent back in RFC 5451 was to relay only those details
>> that
>> > an MUA might care about, such as the DKIM result (so you can display
>> > something representing a "pass" or "fail" on a message) and maybe the
>> > domain name found in a passing signature (an early shot at caring about
>> > alignment when rendering a message). ...
>>
>> I suppose but 5451 also says it might be useful to message filters.
>>
>
> Right, there are clearly MUAs that do some amount of spam filtering, so
> disposition
> of p=quarantine would seem to be useful for that.
>
> Is there any evidence for that though? I would assume that the folks on
> this list use a diverse set of MUA's and would be in a position to tell us
> if some of them do. I'm guessing by your statement that gmail doesn't do
> anything different.
>
Gmail does put messages with disposition quarantine into the spam label,
but we don't rely on the A-R header to pass that information from the smtp
transaction to the mailbox.

At least the Mac Apple Mail client did have a client-side spam filter,
looks like it probably still does:
https://support.apple.com/guide/mail/reduce-junk-mail-mlhlp1065/mac

Does it handle spf/dkim/dmarc in any way?  I don't know.

Brandon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email