Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <> Sat, 05 December 2020 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD933A0E4F for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oRs6-fybcwIU for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB853A0E4B for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m9so5909478pgb.4 for <>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 125sm9377036pfy.111.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:15:55 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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.