IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 8191F3A0D93 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:28:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 5yt81oRQRXDq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe33.google.com (mail-vs1-xe33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5343A0EE6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe33.google.com with SMTP id w18so4124692vsk.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:28:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PKRPep5YS54uIjQt4BnuzWezYFSSkQbqfbawjfusnQI=; b=RxrVo7/xkPgcX/V4ICBrZBZhuqhNgDhNjD29IhkHK8KxbD9o4JmBHuo7NHCpwdUM/7 Y+amLAEd2URapweb7BwzWKeF0yLl7SQixMwO2hqIBDEGW0Pe0dN6nHuGmSft1UlZ6ENH kxdv47zxK1YAE0Q8t7JJn0BkL/KoosXhscQO5jR7R4se3qCVkHwMJRoZ8GQ7tI5Ho9rU PB0aV/iukyddELHhur2TZUMT5QrYksN+jfZ2uF0h/NWMlBSfsJfbKdDOK+C7tEQZPWEh O+tmOil8WTHShUB1mJ90RHQnBSHYoBcUwmlVtsxAVZgWpGMkrDxHzQ9VeFoSk+1pzpRX M/tw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PKRPep5YS54uIjQt4BnuzWezYFSSkQbqfbawjfusnQI=; b=n3azEZWJgfXlnWhdA1on//7FPEY2xHI7k2HhWm3bj1jvSSGUxgZ1KKNPWGP6W91C1r mdPfUWJUaE1pfkZv6T0dMjfwPV5jWGhnMnuzEylwkuvyGQuprYaTZ3Acy4d1UvKyVlJU QcY3uuYtG8xABS8EHYozFSQrq+/SwL/0ugOKt7QIztT2j/PRmx+nT9YteBrCIZmpP7IC v5OTvFzhUNI2yE9tXCgUy3cSgtF9RGgPD3AoUIln36+JyDX+lE15aLNfx4VSU5bqVfzw YoN2Sx3psLQgMDIP2XgOdl7SoWOfULGTRQXkWMUG5JA5T+o+ocvNFvT/2uYmyj4eYLQB FpsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rARgfXUmoSFMHoGZ89TlFNVDp1es4sx5h5JXW4PoXRRVoxOUx WCiekvzA/AIA9x28lP9zHdte03icmGL+vuQyefKS+VKXYWlN
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHKsotwkCTkAGS9UuBlmiigXf9J47e1//AMbMgoycvERQXoxDUsT0W/L1fCTCOw4BG+x2KUBVrr8cs1hvHcuk=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e90d:: with SMTP id c13mr6133166vso.0.1607120889433; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:28:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:27:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba2edf05b5aafd9d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fLERnOSq7UXBWH8MCzCxJDB_CZY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:28:13 -0000

The DMARC spec was originally designed by folks outside of IETF, and the
current RFC was a "cleaned up" and modified into RFC format version of that
spec, to match current practice.
There was also concern with the spec's impact on various indirect email.

Hence, informational and independent submission.

This is somewhat spelled out in the working group charter:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/about/

Brandon

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:41 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> Is my google fu completely failing me, or is RFC 7489 not the DMARC
> protocol spec?
>
> If it's informational, how did that happen?
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email