Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112) - Proposed language

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 16 June 2021 16:01 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 D15A93A1D96 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=HU3B79m+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=kMw07kju
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 J3MS37L41pKs for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 3D5DC3A1D9E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22504 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2021 16:01:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=57e6.60ca2047.k2106; bh=6kHafs7kiUa0aoNWBg2N7VRL+kFEPAaR/1Ql/y+cgEY=; b=HU3B79m+wjTheAYGSfAXyS7c3eu6d84Tcxbw3LixaKWBaBusp9l4pD1/b2MalowQYu3LQLqGzu3AE56GgSIc/+kGamUB6jste08safU/oKkxKs7S/UwPWBda1lCn2vdbBjAmo/h0NbJIr87WBrghleHxxiSIwep1W996NJFd6XlGRh3Itkhr3UGbUT871plqZIkcBf2QTUQTUsnCwzmDW9qRzfGMl6AnvHIsV2tCRYEvnqVL3rRvOYP7MZczIoMQdNyVBJJTARYc9xBAP8ZFLK5JPGyUY5WAsxxPIrou+A/gdcpE2/gSYdiS1ocEJZjoYatzzDWS/jdCfmN+uZS67A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=57e6.60ca2047.k2106; bh=6kHafs7kiUa0aoNWBg2N7VRL+kFEPAaR/1Ql/y+cgEY=; b=kMw07kjuSkMEcixleL2SRbuIZUAG/hoi7xMY33mfOMwAu446hB5oBXxgS64e5PFXIlQN7lm7iCSjrCcPYsDykItBRilWjwns9p+F8m0keIoJbcIfQyy05PEGk8cXbx7HCk5dGyhn72y5SVpOWWHo9irvWCmomMGcqY7D2P5gqoQ7+HMLiCbGMZPp1eBtr0w9plFziaP2ce3LLFvC2GTcgreO3xZXxdf04HomRcnXCuB7gWwZzYPpa66RLf/z6JQQ1yejmHgtQimt+1FPWNJsN10G5olMyJffNqIFFtwJ+wuIC6tYbYTvKxa/ge/h2fFiGajsrIkk3trGi0VuJFS09g==
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 (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 16 Jun 2021 16:01:10 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 09D6011E70FD; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 16 Jun 2021 12:01:08 -0400
Message-Id: <20210616160110.09D6011E70FD@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <05352758-3a50-2ba1-e6a9-f31174a32bc4@tana.it>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bnZSznRXHuCJgYGOEx3LgaDpb3o>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112) - Proposed language
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: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:01:19 -0000

It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>However, to reject based just on NXDOMAIN is too harsh.

I dunno, in my experience it's quite common, and if you do, the chances of losing a message you care
about are negligible.

In any event, this has nothing to do with DMARC.  If for some reason you want to do a DMARC evaluation
of a non-existent domain, you can use the organizational domain or I suppose PSD.

R's,
John