Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:38 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 3CF9D3A0EE6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:38:57 -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 dtb0WlMkxN5d for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (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 E13873A0D85 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id lb18so1446617pjb.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:38:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=teZrDUm+4YQA+QJGCAXreexZVW84/np66Ehm2BiGw5A=; b=RJdTq1pTUe0uq1yfHKdzoH2cPc/BHykjpJr+FhF0v4D1oXD+I8Fo99cfV3uOuKwhsn uuPHBgph02lfC5ML26NfviXRVOJG1cqVindJY1QHCGUYXOrEbB9GXwjubtAuoy6WoOQR 6yLo09FBpg2n6rJcm1JEv6NGgQliEGs0SVitnfilCFSJwZ2zrkJM/UOOJ76ZwbxYyVS6 5Uy9+PwDSAJ/LrTyjZTQ5wL/y6+TPN6IWO0pKHe1KA1ldsqZ4AhXQtHc4Zw9FxlwAspf JfYI9ACEqgLUv7oFBwOMjAPeLjTO+qe/TOp+TzL5cHv+rAxq4hKYizocIkDryaZVNxmk qgmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=teZrDUm+4YQA+QJGCAXreexZVW84/np66Ehm2BiGw5A=; b=KX6x+8FZAPM6QDrAKcjRklIKIMMyPhBnqZVZ+nc6v+SJ+sJeNf5P+SXsjtKa1BZKlA Mt5m3ZGFnbvPEard5mESt03q7JAbPvKLsN9I5ihQP2AJkId4Z73S1+TZGuDpfbWhwqI/ 7xBG7yxEmYpkqzNnHrxfHpj4cjhfY6G3n2xcc+XTSkFYQe9pNyIEaklOd0GCmbzwOVAN cxCUStjYYkWEKguoee99kTI7V30i9TFL4qGk5/abkX7rHEqZ+qMD4SKmbV/MHpsC+vt1 D5f6YVGiuAc3hjEVuax6EnjSsrHHZm9FI4d3mpBEbbIc//JbxtiyU37luZlxYHzz88/+ VbzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530d4Td2M+8wwkeyLITiZ5HEUMmjndWgWk//tREMrKGJ7jWCsra8 lUicFWMvppJn1xOXOlw9P7ANQMDysCXNug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSEHYnL8pHpct7nI5vs1Clw17bhxSE0uhAnYGwlCmJy2seryIsk+sHzagTVeXdrRYoIsq3Hw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ea8c:b029:d6:e179:2097 with SMTP id x12-20020a170902ea8cb02900d6e1792097mr5708856plb.70.1607121533437; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 199sm6142378pfb.219.2020.12.04.14.38.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:38:52 -0800 (PST)
To: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <7224575d-685f-5020-073e-c1880acecc88@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:38:51 -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: <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com>
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/Z_FlPh9W4dhbUdd9154pY2FLpak>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:38:57 -0000

On 12/4/20 2:27 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> The DMARC spec was originally designed by folks outside of IETF, and 
> the current RFC was a "cleaned up" and modified into RFC format 
> version of that spec, to match current practice.
> There was also concern with the spec's impact on various indirect email.
>
> Hence, informational and independent submission.
>
> This is somewhat spelled out in the working group charter: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/about/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/about/>
>
That seems really strange because that pretty much describes DKIM as 
well, and it's very standards track. And adsp which dmarc made historic 
was standards track, and certainly had all of the same issues with 
mailing lists, etc.

Mike