IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 20:47 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 C84C53A08E5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=5EfxDTcX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=YRV0eGdk
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 Gi8NYYSclP1j for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C0203A0E2D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E1FFF80295 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1601066814; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=DPE9unAlLQL3AcHTP+Ahy9M1hu22UUD1kPSl+zcjUZg=; b=5EfxDTcX202cQ7y6sjbR4CzV3C7bdO7Bk0sFLcW1CacP3yTAp0OIJRFJgBuxJQ6G5aedJ oaLw9DT0HuNC3VFCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1601066814; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=DPE9unAlLQL3AcHTP+Ahy9M1hu22UUD1kPSl+zcjUZg=; b=YRV0eGdk6CTSwBBUb7aos77EtmYLurOZJH7ZhuFpff6h+Jp4CeyCsMgIvdSkTis4ilJ3U yFMTK05G1Mo0idM1m2eYfAcEIB/0GD+AvxuqvUu3WdfpilQXfYx0mbSUZkw0bMX3psFR9ak ZWtg2BiuEduJwlFZdhkG7e4g78rAoV4RfqNCiR+jky5i/MPKuk6ElLyucX2I55m1sWJZM1q wSJCdn5KIv1DFmyEkqO0+sX8Z/VFhWRS9E1H+SuTDM96wPNIeuytcwPFj4Y0UdKEhsRBHgA 2p8TPpcYS7NWXKOVoSVG9Y4efWn6GdoDTtQkn6DtBpOaYOlNWOvkHp5FzsQg==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6273EF801A2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:46:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4004580.HQKp4RnRq6@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+F2+pHm2TiEBHWfTnq09icJHw0NW2g-kpq-XOMHXVPizQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200815225306.967CC1E9E41D@ary.local> <CADyWQ+EM400Zk-xM_JBhFY1QppOyCrxt7e0XHxpjhQ_LjG6xgw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+F2+pHm2TiEBHWfTnq09icJHw0NW2g-kpq-XOMHXVPizQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_v_SvlpXygldvlaqJBWIKU1Cu-w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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, 25 Sep 2020 20:47:20 -0000

I'm sorry this came up during a period when I wasn't following the list.  
Having caught up recently, I completely agree with the allusions to Sender ID.  
I don't think this his helpful.  If something like this is going to be 
standardized, it shouldn't be called DMARC because it's not.

Scott K

On Friday, September 25, 2020 2:59:42 PM EDT Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Dave Crocker reminded me that we were going to adopt this document as
> Experimental. I was remiss in not mentioning that.
> 
> Even though the WG adopted this document, it was said during the call that
> the WG may not be able to come to a consensus to move the document
> forward.   Adoption does not mean published (see: ARC Usage).
> 
> tim
> 
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:01 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All
> > 
> > This call for adoption ended a few weeks ago, I have been recalcitrant in
> > following up.   The chairs feel
> > there is enough consensus to adopt this work in DMARC.   While there were
> > issues raised, the chairs feel
> > they can be addressed through the document process.
> > 
> > thanks
> > tim
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:00 AM Hector Santos <hsantos=
> > 
> > 40isdg.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >> On 8/21/2020 3:09 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> >> > On 8/15/20 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >> >> Assurances that are provided by ADSP are generally obtained out of
> >> 
> >> band in the
> >> 
> >> >> real Internet, and not through ADSP.  Current deployment of ADSP is
> >> >> not
> >> >> recommended.
> >> > 
> >> > Is that not exactly the same situation with DMARC, except that the
> >> > policy in question now is "reject" rather than "discardable"? Yes,
> >> > it's just a keyword, but it reflects the semantics of the expected
> >> > action as well.
> >> > 
> >> > -Jim
> >> 
> >> No one was expected to follow a reject, so it was said, until it did
> >> happen.  SPF pushed
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Hector Santos,
> >> https://secure.santronics.com
> >> https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> dmarc@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email