IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Mon, 01 April 2024 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 1A4A3C14CE25 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:43:41 -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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 OPsvEORTh_Ug for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 B591FC14F701 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 39067 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2024 21:43:34 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=9899660b2a86.k2404; bh=AaJIAhTIafILfqC0jVYdqxo1F43KKVP0+x6FxwSs2P0=; b=J5NjBGgHez+uqc8rGJcv0DA/yMQtq+My6SbKRrunF0LgMe37GOZGl7GgA8DAqQd88TsInjltvEe+46KpN04O/FqifhMykGd13pVUJ44c5ya4HIbdL4obENM7/IAvOmKPtwLAxuRJJVANeVrGRkwaBhikaG1Hmb03hlWGMUV8oTO/UqEjGplpaxEsKJZ2o3FQfLibnA7cg73QrRFcFEzL54HqswCkt7tLtYP2KqbV8HcTlJhTF9JkunKapiZLltFRqkfgB9SA8mns9PpFXlPL9fyl6eWP1gxuxdg7xuw7vbCLNYKHFjE+bp2lOlkEmEvvqEt7gwi/ZZtEJGvr2Tj3Mg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 01 Apr 2024 21:43:33 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7ECBC86A6A4D; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 17:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F6886A6A2F; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 17:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 17:43:33 -0400
Message-ID: <10f94e0e-7199-ee0d-ce36-62a2c6c78d95@iecc.com>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <CFEA2796-9213-4847-836B-81E8770973F5@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <CFEA2796-9213-4847-836B-81E8770973F5@bluepopcorn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/an0jZ6JseVdw-wgyFPB3AITMCXQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Overall last-call comments on DMARC
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:43:41 -0000

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Jim Fenton wrote:
> Based on the above problems, I do not think DMARC-bis should be published as 
> a standards track document by IETF.

This reminds me of the NAT wars in the 1990s.  We all understand that 
DMARC has a lot of problems, but it's far more widely used than many of 
the IETF's published standards.  It just makes us look insular and out of 
touch to pretend that it doesn't exist, or if we shut our eyes it will go 
away.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email