IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 14 April 2023 11:43 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 4318CC151B18 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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_HI=-5, 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=tana.it header.b="wYwWb6pV"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="CQCSJfGu"
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 RicYqELFdkkD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:43:25 -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 0A639C151B12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1681472597; bh=PvvcMeA9bzzrFgIx8g+oOcSB9qWgKNs3CMqBdeGZwUs=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=wYwWb6pVw72d7NbFqyF1qoKi5OmMePW2U71AdBY9/wAfqv0V1ek9Br/TjgIkfqjBv LyUqYTynTF7tJNJoB6yAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1681472597; bh=PvvcMeA9bzzrFgIx8g+oOcSB9qWgKNs3CMqBdeGZwUs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CQCSJfGu1muNp7+pGATn8XABTuTugO5q5sL3tpTL3DUyjknNsk1Lq0yI2Kwo/D63v EuyjNISBtM8a624BxQjJXtbFPld8VjsBOrDgkKN87ROsBg0bVRwMGCTsEC8TLQJ70k XBQqqhStoRIuv6PkkSFNuUkOJtsnWV57veAoI5C6H8/UYCDB+OX7GpAovc1fv
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs
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 00000000005DC083.0000000064393C55.00007F8C; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:17 +0200
Message-ID: <9b2609df-132e-9f88-dc9d-0634779ec9b2@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:43:17 +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: <CAL0qLwYbbLLq-qLg_Wnp5aFw_2my4UTZz3U3LjwbCmpMNdudfA@mail.gmail.com> <20230413151342.B96D0BF17F1F@ary.qy> <CALaySJKM5Kct0u0ekuEBS=DVQTXG_CiewpzNwVyPiAaQ9zx3VA@mail.gmail.com> <b404f73b-301a-d38c-2dee-b3cbad8a85e2@taugh.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <b404f73b-301a-d38c-2dee-b3cbad8a85e2@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ajF2po-ltjOvwzOJhY8d0fTZEpI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs
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, 14 Apr 2023 11:43:31 -0000

On Thu 13/Apr/2023 18:01:40 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to figure out where best to say this, but when you say p=reject, you 
> are saying your mail is *not* important, and if there is any doubt about it, 
> you want recipients to throw it away, even though some of your real mail will 
> get lost.


Hm... What p= should I set i I consider my mail important and wand people to 
throw away fakes?

To wit, if there was a Mailman option to say "reject my posts on verification 
failure", I'd click it.  In this respect, reject is much safer than quarantine, 
because, if the message was authentic, I'd get a bounce, correct a signing 
error and re-send.  Pretty safe.


> In ADSP I made the equivalent policy "discardable" to reinforce this point.  My 
> co-authors weren't happy about it, but they couldn't disagree.


ADSP was different from DMARC.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email