IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 12 July 2023 11:30 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 0703EC151AFC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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="BaTWVh/V"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="JR5I3fTz"
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 hNtm6VV-wzUH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (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 DF5C9C151AE5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 04:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475E2F80181 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 07:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1689161404; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=GrZ/KwxpiqK46jNTw7QLT6eM1NrvoD/2viCtI8gRzsg=; b=BaTWVh/VBnqvtCkyBz6kGze3z20NONydz85/Y+9YvRHKA+yDVKXKUHSPvplk/vKNQKh6r Tmj5Qw0mmsbKgDDDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1689161404; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=GrZ/KwxpiqK46jNTw7QLT6eM1NrvoD/2viCtI8gRzsg=; b=JR5I3fTzonFciZnvxGjysLKjYvWbB3niZkw8EjB7lH4fXmDX+SpkTWu5TGl113bIydteE YPdeZLczdShdvcW6FZsIVMVS9E6segnMwC1ZHPAGZM/VrdpZelMXFunYPzAlw2H049kRQLM a+nK5igtDmy/Rjk8TYFHAZSjKS2M6B3jS+Y/WNSclHKR/DG73xPUGDnSnwrBFogOlJ8BImN KQNHbKQCMYoZIOsfiF9weaHRFcbRrx4xcckPWP9Pf7jKs1dZPDKs6hsSd1GH1FY9DHrqsiU ZHVB+gZIB4CcpVhLWjv3oEsjVuuY17KRqdcl/AEU6ybEf1Dn5cxcPia7LGTw==
Received: from l5580-debian.localnet (unknown [50.205.124.98]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC61EF80123 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 07:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 07:30:03 -0400
Message-ID: <9182698.rMLUfLXkoz@l5580-debian>
In-Reply-To: <5f7b5e0a-bd1f-1a09-faa8-4af56bf2cd1b@tana.it>
References: <CALaySJJSxpjmi4PgY27afc0iiMwimRtqj3m2NxKud1Bxb33jxg@mail.gmail.com> <2637666.BddDVKsqQX@l5580-debian> <5f7b5e0a-bd1f-1a09-faa8-4af56bf2cd1b@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z7TwxT30UFl8CJNwrbsFsJPZ048>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:30:40 -0000

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 7:04:38 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 12/Jul/2023 12:54:38 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
> >> the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
> >> the need for parsing the reply text…
> > 
> > This is a very good point.  The IANA Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
> > Enhanced Status Codes Registry [1] has codes for SPF and DKIM (RFC 7372)
> > and ARC (RFC 8617), but not DMARC.  Adding one is not currently in the
> > DMARCbis draft, but I think it should be.
> 
> +1; still, having the word "DMARC" in the text greatly simplifies parsing
> logs.
> 
> 
> I noted that Baptiste wrote 5xx, not 5.x.x.  5xx has to be 550 methinks.

I agree re 550.  Also, if I were writing the reject message that goes after 
the code, I would include DMARC in it.  I suspect most will for human 
readability, but programatically, I'd use the codes if present.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email