IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2023 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 36025C13AE45 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 D6aSg5pKE490 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 6F521C13AE32 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id cn12so63352435edb.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680096654; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IeP6jz13kC5d/Jm+aMN+a/XWPPraH43WlGVmBjym4dc=; b=FGdW/JR9vB8nDn/iEvIEb2bwz+wI+7C7MfTqGX60Y1snuol5lsmbsj3VE4F0Ahmjnn 2HipevwgRHfhOAT5KydYaNqbRL5gxEbyyMDQUnnHK/0dFU1swGNCMjQgpSi/1fot5Qgi 8+mUUOj8WoCtrxGUPf2DCTqqZd5AFckckFTsxHRWfMQ/JT0BMl9rI0fw06Cd90vgRMFJ yDVYZe3kNPG9t0nB6zjTiPTT75n9oy5Qf0+Uz3OogFAL9GS60HrhZ/r9/nXaD/OeYvIF 1fneE/NX1lcDz4TroKd+SIMQY47ZoanrHnCe5C1GH+SHFmC02a4tlQjEp1kbbVCdztem FIZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680096654; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IeP6jz13kC5d/Jm+aMN+a/XWPPraH43WlGVmBjym4dc=; b=T9TnyfIEEEEGuE4VefbXxxbw/GyHMO8tqEyPnmRwaPZadDmZafWszY31phpcOL8UvM qjZIWsxXca6qihpkLcXRQbEfVUA5cVegMRRzRi1dmQJUI6UforL2W24yvRbH429L3Jj1 CnEGge4/QlsqzJ06hqHkcv7TNTX663xL548n0ttLX2AqSIboL8OhtzD5KnJIQlUCZJig S43qjnlgmclWmSiziid/xQp58ZvfdFjMoXz2weIFSM/DIagvyLEGaKDM66ZC7G3KRmBP c1WTuEuclKkqsEz9S1C66aNdT3tQW4YEDUQ2DbwS1ocq7NdfS/OJWinarILXnyIgMwlO jfOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fD37YqL98tkfzq+JoN5EPTYhgwP2pt9g5B7/pySNkvlUUIwFcg JbO8dCfLJ4iJnpSawPJvEX/jOsawomgPs5i6lIffBWWdt5A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZqDuV74tCmOcJ0oU8x6cPF2kOfDAD8TUZfmbqpOJbCoZF+wYzDfvQjPnPI99HW5yXQXvrh6wTdUYVUvHBYJqA=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9f82:0:b0:4fa:3c0b:74b with SMTP id c2-20020a509f82000000b004fa3c0b074bmr9903546edf.3.1680096653690; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <d02bfc46-efd1-28db-c14a-5c1365aefcbb@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <d02bfc46-efd1-28db-c14a-5c1365aefcbb@tana.it>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:30:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYfaQ-Yh9Ez2U4J4ZVFT-6HMzBNGyN31L0sWYLdQeL1Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b4ace05f809fcb3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/e2EDgXtTFgwOgoQCd7zHiDVGTis>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:30:57 -0000

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:18 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> I'd mention indirect mail flows explicitly, rather than referring to
> generic
> interoperability problems.  But several mailing list adopted expedients in
> order to overcome those problems.  Furthermore, there are experimental
> protocols that address the issue maintaining the end-to-end nature of
> existing
> identifier fields, and more are going to come.  It is possible that a
> future
> ecosystem will support strict DMARC policies for everyone.  Thus it is a
> "MUST
> until" rather than unless.  Is that compliant with RFC 2119?
>

I don't think I've ever seen an RFC published that uses a "MUST until" kind
of construct.  Since we can't predict the future, and since this document
doesn't acknowledge any of the external mitigations to which you refer (in
particular, it doesn't reference ARC), I don't think it should try.

-MSK, participating

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email