IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 12 July 2023 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 8C0AAC151AE5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 03:55:14 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=kitterman.com header.b="l0GIxkjz"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="J0o5pOF7"
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 aJzQxZXLlAea for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 03:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (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 3A43DC151AE0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 03:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A5FEF80181 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1689159282; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=WE3gcICt9e2RUWbQRE0s4RP3SOEQG53dJFYv+kfgTnw=; b=l0GIxkjznYIKvlmwU1Nn1iJWYdi7tTE7XbB60d/lJuygBxpyu5EdLUJ4kaGWJ1+gurnhw +XnoUNbW1AHPD2eBA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1689159282; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=WE3gcICt9e2RUWbQRE0s4RP3SOEQG53dJFYv+kfgTnw=; b=J0o5pOF7vElPVYY435pWiE0pk++46KbupMFJbZi4nmwIu0ZJcmf9n1u/aNWT5qzT+S23J Pd7BCjWgqHkjhbJHB9B0dmSZX5sIVQPf6LilpQInMtYvsCYzTwEXyiZ+9mVrFuOuOdJngGv zsmu7YGr6TB9GlZR2cxhrCXS465ZLybkCPBIlfJ6r5nxrxljj7PN1+xdRKRGUHA5DE+Va99 tayzwZI6HLDCzA+qb27NrrWm9XNgazkeLAf/srSlUDdOhaHPbUX5ufCrX+9k4CzZzEoGpFU kHa9O4ZI8eq6AZZGD/8cat9OwZ27biBiXDKdhqoPo4u65CcD9nmWlOegvTLQ==
Received: from l5580-debian.localnet (unknown [50.205.124.98]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78656F80123 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:54:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:54:38 -0400
Message-ID: <2637666.BddDVKsqQX@l5580-debian>
In-Reply-To: <458b5863-310b-d6f6-86cd-46d9b77e95b8@baptiste-carvello.net>
References: <CALaySJJSxpjmi4PgY27afc0iiMwimRtqj3m2NxKud1Bxb33jxg@mail.gmail.com> <5348fdea-abd2-86a3-1968-44c9ce8f44c4@taugh.com> <458b5863-310b-d6f6-86cd-46d9b77e95b8@baptiste-carvello.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/eiTTGiFwO2cyC9GUvg4ElWIwa7c>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] SMTP Result Codes was -Re: Another p=reject text proposal
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, 12 Jul 2023 10:55:14 -0000

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:29:34 AM EDT Baptiste Carvello wrote:
...
> Why? Because it's brittle and will only bring them more headaches? At
> the very least, DMARC would need to use its own 5xy reply code to avoid
> the need for parsing the reply text…
...

This is a very good point.  The IANA Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) 
Enhanced Status Codes Registry [1] has codes for SPF and DKIM (RFC 7372) and 
ARC (RFC 8617), but not DMARC.  Adding one is not currently in the DMARCbis 
draft, but I think it should be.

Scott K

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes/smtp-enhanced-status-codes.xhtml

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email