Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 21 December 2020 17:47 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 5C9623A131B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:47:33 -0800 (PST)
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 PLmd0LWx5LXP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4534C3A131A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:47:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1608572850; bh=QyzLna6/Dahj/xMLx5y3iaXOgDJl8qs5P1iu5jPZcUU=; l=1026; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Cr9LFpbQKZtgLzRMxCBuKt7Ociv6nMtVC+CkoCYgL+zor8DXNajujOSA62314Ly8j B/nvJUlLE+uDNQV4d7OVvWRXE2VJI0i1E7xq9B5HgNcRtFpECkdfnpxOExbvOJdb7S GFPetIzlahbpBn4VIbz1uNrOLadvcp//sZLj875MPkZiM32EFPuUSJgC6Cc1Z
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: 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 00000000005DC07E.000000005FE0DFB2.00006928; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:47:30 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201211173722.6B4DF29782C7@ary.qy> <ea074aad-971b-abc6-d557-ea2f433b3cc7@gmail.com> <CAH48ZfxEjGHv99z3RGj+Z+KJaFVPvm6RG4UzkKuOoDQDVCmb3g@mail.gmail.com> <A5E108DC-2692-4927-B2C1-AE3FED6DA8AA@wordtothewise.com> <CAH48ZfwkPEgexwGvyMT_PevMM5ngBT_XRfHYi7Wy1yxMw1LP1A@mail.gmail.com> <A07FA3DE-4C51-48C4-A2E7-067987200E1F@wordtothewise.com> <CAH48ZfwykEJM9AXKrp+SS4SgM4N1W70eLqHW+PXB18a_TrV6iw@mail.gmail.com> <02f786e5-b7cd-9a89-e3e3-73594f3bcda0@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8nHfn4uT4oeFJN-pbd-u3vrv2WiSnmAH-2v35OBmSi1cg@mail.gmail.com> <e715de9a-5f24-8077-0038-14c664850bd1@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=FoTmCg8goD-yC2nTPKzoMUTNjfJ4aeTC4j7vYJEf0sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <cb659179-a3f0-bec6-d6be-7d2bd665d78e@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 18:47:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=FoTmCg8goD-yC2nTPKzoMUTNjfJ4aeTC4j7vYJEf0sw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/a0OCeKKAKUgXLmYo_UVueltQLVE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 17:47:33 -0000

On Sun 20/Dec/2020 18:10:03 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
> 
> Lists are a specific instance of the more general case of indirect mail flows.


How many kinds of indirect mail flows do rewrite From:?

Specific methods might prove more effective than general ones.


> [...]
> 
> Since the receiver typically can't perform the same checks under the same 
> conditions that existed when the intermediary performed them (if it could, we 
> wouldn't need something like ARC) then the receiver has to decide if the 
> message is consistent with messages it's previously seen through direct mail 
> flows using that same authenticated identity that was captured by the 
> intermediary in the ARC header set.


Doesn't that assume some kind of omniscience at the receiver's?  Consistency 
with previous messages by the same source is not straightforward.  Using the 
same selector?  Signing more or less the same set of header fields?  Choice of 
vocabulary?  HTML vs. plain text style (e.g. line length)?  A.I.?


Best
Ale
--