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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 28 April 2023 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 EB470C14CF18 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="lTLnfCjf"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="CbqLZK9D"
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 3M-ROSwFZudC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (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 C2B68C15155C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1682668676; bh=5MaqsxMwNCr5hinqjWueCJVXJdueNjrCuOqOCaW7Wsk=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=lTLnfCjfS2O8DViHAlGjqR58m5sZkihP4TfYqad65e2S6AEAQUOa9edpOrS+9IREt MV7mYYY1O3yRSdhcAiwAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1682668676; bh=5MaqsxMwNCr5hinqjWueCJVXJdueNjrCuOqOCaW7Wsk=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CbqLZK9DBIpdVikf1nP1BRO2TfThX8csmp9oItymcfvABNcZWjM+ejjQsmOVp0NiM m/jE2WJPp0HLbBsLRZjJCsUHnA5It4dAx4DHBtVfOiK1QSuZouAcjdwypOuieqj1R4 XVijO906l3f599Wt3QcbezMrVELLFbMV9DPTWfHlE5p3zMrMCoulFWD4YjIF8
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0F5.00000000644B7C83.00003440; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:57:55 +0200
Message-ID: <a1bd7110-3bb5-2d20-ad0c-27865bc9dc8b@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:57:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
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> <62F9992E-B7BE-47B8-B35E-EB05CB9BE9EC@kitterman.com> <838f6026-a522-4e14-9ec9-046157abf6c0@app.fastmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <838f6026-a522-4e14-9ec9-046157abf6c0@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YAlmna7mB3DL3yUnVlvCXhrZad0>
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 07:58:09 -0000

On Fri 28/Apr/2023 05:14:16 +0200 Jesse Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023, at 9:54 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 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:
>>>[citation elided]


Good note.  I think it's called /lapsus calami/ when one ends up writing 
something which wasn't supposed to be uttered.  "The phenomena can be traced 
back to incompletely suppressed psychical material, which, although pushed away 
by consciousness, has nevertheless not been robbed of all capacity for 
expressing itself" to cite Freud.


>> 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.
> 
> Restricting the "MUST NOT" to the context of 5321 achieves consensus, I think


RFC 5321 is not normative on that point.  Section 3.9 says MLMs MUST change the 
bounce address and SHOULD simply use the list.  That's the only mustard in the 
section.  Changes to the header and the body are certainly not encouraged, but 
the section ends saying:

    There exist mailing lists that perform additional, sometimes
    extensive, modifications to a message and its envelope.  Such mailing
    lists need to be viewed as full MUAs, which accept a delivery and
    post a new message.

Now, *every* MUA I know rewrites From: when the user forwards a message.


Best
Ale
--