IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 31 March 2024 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 9A91CC14F5FD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:33:02 -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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 dMJzkY0kR9QI for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C10C5C14F5E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1711906366; bh=Ekp0JOulZ7q02WJSJ+Wjjbqa2yg0psbNeZCL1AVWgfs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=AA6RiiT00eSaCOclOTa0dkdHWIbIO/keW6sih16eLecazYaHY/9B8O/ZNClnqNIyX VCdiW9cVKJpzdVMO0R0E89dHNQCRo3Hb2hVVpthVI605uDeQsXUnDcSXczE1EMQ2IC sBtzz9Mh/Dv3QtIKlVFaO8LEPDy8yLufHHDV716t92y62EcdVTCpnwvM3UAZC
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC265.0000000066099E3E.0000382A; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 19:32:46 +0200
Message-ID: <516da015-ea49-4ecb-8b3b-87d80f67ddc6@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 19:32:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfPwJHKGyLjTkdGDqkMeK4RQX4Fj0rw-Upn0cLZ+cE74aA@mail.gmail.com> <2cdd13ec-9d7f-4732-91ea-9c8983d7a28c@tana.it> <CAH48ZfzaNR2A6zUWVeeoay+UHLHTzja9f5RGfAt5htXd21C0KQ@mail.gmail.com> <d4405d75-f22e-4cdc-92d9-71a3fc258c13@tana.it> <eda55c54-c149-475c-8117-bfdf3885a883@tekmarc.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <eda55c54-c149-475c-8117-bfdf3885a883@tekmarc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hzsG9qdh-eAk-thFJSReNN29s1E>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 17:33:02 -0000

On Sun 31/Mar/2024 18:50:16 +0200 Mark Alley wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 11:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 
>>   People who publish -all know what they do.
> 
> I posit that there is a non-insignificant amount of domain owners that don't 
> know what the consequences of -all are other than that they've been instructed 
> to use "-all" by a guide online, (questionably) by an ESP, or by auditors or 
> check boxes for several notorious vendor health checks that still recommend to 
> use it as a best practice, or even as the defaults that came with their domain 
> from <registrar>, and don't know any better.


Yeah, I should've written People who publish -all /should/ know what they do.


> I don't think it's fair to characterize SPF -all's entire usage based on the 
> assumption everyone knows what it does, when reality demonstrates otherwise.


Tracking trends and recommendations is much more complicated, though.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email