Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sat, 05 December 2020 23:15 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 3CD933A0E4F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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.20150623.gappssmtp.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 oRs6-fybcwIU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 0AB853A0E4B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id m9so5909478pgb.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=lSFNaCZxpxPTz0DsPPcGy6pPsLb4kJNaOXAO+G7PNpA=; b=uDdGVcKQa9Ipnc3PhC1A13Sioztfi6pHc+Q57X40SYpCjvklLsyD3Kqw2aIlTdtUSg vU8Ln8Vv8ZMJhrg5MUhKITVZcRJb1htcAf6CzjkTY/e1MPu7TFi+DKOVqybV8ciTm0Cg 6v+Hj08b6hzJDgj+l6Gkoke+T2yyqFNIRhTyg2anfiGPvaF6VdMOqHHgduC80aEYz/QD neEl0tEiyWEPNTzzanlYR5VyrgWYAxomuDxr4XPtG8jose4oV9dAjqmsssPiVjyhTVyJ 0L+2ysrpWRhNG7JjYLOoa/gYh/fTne5/E5lCb7/trwZeEtgEUj4aOi6FMvaxDizWs3r3 zfTg==
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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=lSFNaCZxpxPTz0DsPPcGy6pPsLb4kJNaOXAO+G7PNpA=; b=eEWfZNUd7a9DL3dmDw9eUKnZy3N1F4uNpeht+cJqJWp5xTC/k0pD+e3wJc3KyYFIiz Ok/2jSHZ5KFRDdJuB0ISvQ2Jy4FhyMgJgPZDSdIZCksYgiv93lRWT/0O0o+lVm2DZCnr rLpyzNNIkf2942XRHq3fIrvofjQeTpM3tMC6LbSNxycpKGzEXbqcnKZdQdV0ImnG2gwv RRHjKtozHpYMfAEuaRxzflQgyOQQElAayX1gw+udns5a6+7ztJ68SPynQNCAQLzdTqcy wLA7xHAiGAHxA2d2emXNUsGLzKoNexLjxj6iZgLNrjcADwouqgND9UpP0vGFNyLpkFbR gqkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530zbPuAVE5Lavc5kQOR9R30vrjU7LLZFZdukrmX0e0bns3e58UW Q5rjYB9FwqrojK3FpCLFU+qGKyVrqxD5Wh7/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/NG91a65f6Dv5i2GfEUejHQ1V7II9nPackH4KnSMbE637z+VH+NvEftiV2knSwnL79t85Bw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:816:b029:198:30d:e020 with SMTP id m22-20020a056a000816b0290198030de020mr10305981pfk.52.1607210156004; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 125sm9377036pfy.111.2020.12.05.15.15.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:15:55 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <b437a23a-7e7e-f70d-04dc-49810d002c43@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/iFrCePut0W4cxq0sHdL1crlgHDs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:15:58 -0000

On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702fd9@mtcc.com> you write:
>> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new
>> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail. If I want
>> you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an acceptable
>> place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like
>> reject-except-valid-arc.
> Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system
>
> a) I don't believe you.
>
> 2) I don't care.
>
> I think you will find this reaction pretty common.
>
> I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I described
> for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the only way
> to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC
> policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even need ARC
> for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect
> routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to.
>
> You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY mean
> it, but see 2) above.
>

Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even 
responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem.

And  your anecdotal evidence drawn from a tiny system is very suspect.

Mike