IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 9267F3A0AD6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 yDCvSQLjYYBy for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 08DE63A0AD3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id c12so9722884pfo.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=xITvwwRWEX+neCpAdYcPjMxOUZ4T4yJn5/xic3xWNXM=; b=J8cs+fLKUnLd2jAnGUZh8rAcB+htOqEQGWLCwvVwxk68UGmXDXGBHD7+giy+DvMj8a EdM66haUdS/NFGkHrRACjhor+bvJGWJo/gTnpXndwAzsPe5/iByMrDBqTdrd9GL/aWmT K+yCHiWmbTYyLrYCKQSuW+ueb8M8/SvdlMVqSCNwbLSndv45TZgR1yr/aLxbG0Ok+GSE OW2w55cmZ2yPy9AI5W39/ztiwbt8/e0+72d2gEXbK8zToaAnwof2fTVwA/onQYTa5Tom yR/sYUGkg1mKkOFNpb35Z3pPaZDsWuNTcdjJ6jG796RO6DoGxjm2ejKvbA6+yU9oVus+ qr1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=xITvwwRWEX+neCpAdYcPjMxOUZ4T4yJn5/xic3xWNXM=; b=scHDiXcH7J0A14iFSb/7QdSTFE6m46IEpjKXVlyKUHWEqlDtkDTO0IFMsU5eQX0RMt QyVYhRfwHkMrxcSCI2IfO+XSQK/SigC/eEWdJG2Lae2AxdN3Xogxn4Z+5sNv/s3iZw/L kILnZi4ccJVwUyjnKgKDgeUPjmb2awAQokjjV5E3Q49uU/vqeMIh4i5Hwf7jwDulbDb4 yLSd37FBMVaaEvzcdpiO9FLN+ffLTEgMaix+EXB5TwvVjWDEeqzhpsyfBfTta1QeAC3M C+TVUvuxQ3cupl0zguF7oXJQ1cjIQvZvLT0Zsh21I1AJium+Narg423EATsfBLOo+zV2 i3Mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305iY7MRrqlJNNUpvJ4IWQB1zrStWQAdXpclR2+vcdub2wRtbrz sLDRoNngfxmaBeRuHrnISfaOD1AKutp0KA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxw2ggqh8KxNjVr+FIR+Qp7uSyFu7Q+CMBQQ/SKY2/IkcRDwUADravDRT//NYIYtBTgrS/yjw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:8205:0:b029:19e:717c:d647 with SMTP id w5-20020a6282050000b029019e717cd647mr48586306pfd.50.1609336543950; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-45-95.volcanocom.com. [107.182.45.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d20sm8621911pjz.3.2020.12.30.05.55.42 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:43 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8m0OWsTt+tcSgUh+Fxu=HH_57nsb2O1Q_fgA2453ceh4g@mail.gmail.com> <140485eb-020f-4406-3f2f-e2c475ea51e5@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mApfoF2ORgL+DoYTanrdhMjvT9H27kORwLKCQc1C9sRw@mail.gmail.com> <5588dbbe-b876-ed80-c80f-792380e3718f@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=kW_t_JkOxUud1Uz8+PrbMh5CfwfxZK=mhe0wjW8wQpw@mail.gmail.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it> <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <9c5f18c2-c5f6-4f66-a185-f684949738b5@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 05:55:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C872739695E3A14EF3E33EAD"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hPLcKi7QktrPQ5K155hnQNRHeOo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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, 30 Dec 2020 13:55:47 -0000

On 12/30/20 5:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it 
> <mailto:vesely@tana.it>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue 29/Dec/2020 22:02:20 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
>     > On 12/29/20 12:47 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
>     >>> Unless those values in parens are a MUST requirement, the
>     dmarc=fail is
>     >>> highly misleading.
>
>
>     I agree with Michael here.  When a (trusted) dmarc=fail is seen
>     downstream, its consumers neither know what policy was specified
>     nor whether it was honored.
>
>
> That depends on your definition of "downstream", I guess.
>
> MDAs and local clients (web and mobile) at the mailbox provider will 
> have the information they need.

No they don't. I keep saying this, but you guys keep dismissing me. 
Painting up "fail" for p=none is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It is 
not what the user expects to see for a piece of mail that is perfectly 
acceptable to the originating domain. This is an error or omission, full 
stop.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email