Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)

SM <> Sat, 06 July 2013 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E52221F9CC4 for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hllbWPFmUIyf for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D00D21F9AF0 for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r66I51lb013870; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1373133908; bh=Ouvz9RTM8nPVEQmVIcNBKpbuAKpewzuqZ4NmRe4a5H0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gC+nit0430bx5fZfoaNhMJ9TWnDCzoPdiTj1aiP5IjpnpHQHQzoCdVDUao1DH03a0 vWyUz/NPSD3Afgqza0imxlFT0Pt4Lr+qsFodQLFxGJJQXLeOIoxjTrib8GRyVqyS3l iiMnhu/+fWAbGfhzgyGjWTIW/grx3jNQrQDsKLHE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1373133908;; bh=Ouvz9RTM8nPVEQmVIcNBKpbuAKpewzuqZ4NmRe4a5H0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZxyejxzT9uUmmf0oXYBY7/FjAbWG1NApoNNLBn9zQ1pqmW/8LjD07ofS1OEGYka+L 1uIamMhRhh0h8gL5u3MP7XH49/bSDhhhCQ8Y387sfFU/NYDNbikYDTZrLkvzCCSNAF GJJhkbZf/Kz7HKA0TOaSN4xEbA8kAlTbYRX3Jme4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:01:40 -0700
To: Franck Martin <>
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53A77D0C@ESV4-MBX02.linked>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc:, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (was:Fwd: Eliot's review of the DMARC spec)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:05:19 -0000

Hi Frank,
At 01:14 06-07-2013, Franck Martin wrote:
>There is not much standardization of response codes from MTAs. There 
>are extended response codes, but then you cannot deduct from them, 
>if the problem is due to DMARC or other security policies. If I'm 
>not mistaken, take the case of Facebook, refusing an email because 
>you are not a friend of the recipient... Or the same error code 
>could indicate SPF or DKIM or other protocol failure... Having the 
>word DMARC in the text of the error message gives a lot of 
>information for debugging a specific email. Consider also the error 
>could be generated after a forwarder is trying to send an email... 
>Without a proper hint of what is the reason of the reject it is very 
>hard to know what really happened for a specific email.

That is usually know as a local policy decision.  If I recall 
correctly the question of the sender knowing the reason for a mail 
delivery failure was discussed in another working group.

I understand the use case mentioned above.  I would look at the draft 
in terms of a standard for the Internet, if that is the intended 
purpose, instead of a document about how to know why a message is 
considered as spam.