Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 17:41 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 CF0453A0800 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:41:17 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 7702wvXn8DJ7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 BFF8B3A07F7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id 131so7435271pfb.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:41:16 -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=0vODXDts7kdrwiQgChumBlWi/how1G1/rTSyqP87uwc=; b=htpreJfAhsN7WG88SYiHkTF7U1Bd40v9JRBQESc/hU/QWZOSDVkj20ILqAARiQgiG/ Q9dgihoR/UK/Gf7vl6RKoPVYC/1ordy2RLzBcILcEzVFkldlvMAdyP9Gy3dqbAauJ2sI EyzK7wvOkxSj7F0gAZnzQ6Xqi/ck+YM4ZMkcY4cIBWpZktDqv8BsiHE5qpEUGv6QWOxI GxwDrXh8mtCy/+UeCfUzqa0JU6rbr0lUHuxu/UY63VSmlYZNv5CKyf1noh1hPQQw3s2/ FeMg1L2M1sSZ1mIye0kL1Og2qns8dVBlxP2hg8r7nW/QsjSqLkOzEvSQ3F0+TMASKfBS 5peg==
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=0vODXDts7kdrwiQgChumBlWi/how1G1/rTSyqP87uwc=; b=CL34yyq8UGYDKqs8MzHZzFJ7WPM1O6XDa10RcJUk5jBbwQpgH1IwTigM4f/vlz0Yp2 EcBzL7qgfFW37Y4IjC8WMciloBw9HZ10q+CHqxGS7BFl70MKBYjFw7Fs+JMWWTCOBuvM +0qlofaWYeVzugndwl0HnzYCxfb7QB5vKV3oep5ozeKFUXhsfWAv0w6O0zRsGC6Gqb9I kyUHJQlYmr1KK5UYK5VFAUU5ISBYg4TNh8VXglSbTAAOiZpybsVeJk03hHdwbne9UoSj 5TvS34KGlO4/FRRo3AgRze74vyCZWBZWkNYBCaNX0vzDV8fncSdT09gSaGdiUXTqlGQZ b/hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nOgm4fKlaiF0yb3NrIrlUvFi46J/HvSQiZ6BCE9v1OflPHdkn 7q2hUAyqNVlqpW1Pc6DPz/BZYgb5HdwD4Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHuLLiPC+Or4SvJxaAsCJ4xK9LDfQnK8ciec2VBSwa1G1itxuYJNheKUDMpdHCnh/dQ0NPPA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:19ca:0:b029:19d:cd0d:af83 with SMTP id 193-20020a6219ca0000b029019dcd0daf83mr9095733pfz.51.1607276475536; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm7845502pjs.16.2020.12.06.09.41.14 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:41:14 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com> <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <fe860f7a-3b0a-20cc-2512-3f9acdfe0212@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:41:13 -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: <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net>
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/iPKS0Met4NSocRa8n5wKYmPoX00>
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:41:18 -0000

On 12/5/20 7:56 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> FWIW, I don’t think a lot of the people publishing p=reject understood 
> the implications of that, either. This is not significantly more arcane.

The audience for what I am bringing up are exactly the clueful set who 
are paranoid about any modifications at all to their mail. I want my 
bank to be paranoid because, you know, money. Anybody can be clueless 
and select the wrong policy, but that doesn't mean that the clueful 
should not have a policy that meets their wishes.

Mike