IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs p=quarantine

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 20 December 2020 11:44 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 0EDFD3A0F13 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 03:44:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04Au3GQUstfK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 03:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703AC3A0F0F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 03:44:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1608464643; bh=RFwOnRjw4WTTdYP2CugF4hd+icwnpKSyL+VNHoozPgw=; l=793; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CpxVm9o8UmXPQZ4l6URpj3jAwnz62DeoaRezkTxbp/BNNwb/b0CJJr9NIpAxcgWRt kVAM06cfo9bkxmHy4pxdFvFgJcjYG0VDw47362L1D/KUBKmLyvh+Kmbyq+YBCFnSgT k/f2+a1SeD3qOWKWx2t6i9qAg92FuGA5nuDK82G4XwzqyoTjKTibxw2Qpy0Zj
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC056.000000005FDF3903.00007409; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 12:44:03 +0100
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <1e61f7c4-c6d2-5dab-dfc7-f1fd740e1d0d@tana.it> <20201219194954.BF87E2ADF1FB@ary.qy> <CAJ4XoYfx=qRyARbcf7m8T6+_2hJKifgAoBXBdfmqGucanrUJfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <9b7cc1c9-e031-4ef8-8d92-2c16cc4fa073@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 12:44:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYfx=qRyARbcf7m8T6+_2hJKifgAoBXBdfmqGucanrUJfw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jFFJBHVkfVL4ihSobdMNLueqAE4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs p=quarantine
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, 20 Dec 2020 11:44:10 -0000

On Sat 19/Dec/2020 21:50:34 +0100 Dotzero wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:50 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> In article <1e61f7c4-c6d2-5dab-dfc7-f1fd740e1d0d@tana.it> you write:
>>> Now my tiny MX stores 115,225 domains total.  And I have no idea how I
>>> could add a trust-ARC-seals boolean field to each domain record. >>
>> You wouldn't.  Only a small fraction of those domains send enough
>> forwarded mail to be worth worrying about.  We know we need some sort of
>> shared list of plausible forwarders but I would be amazed if it were
>> anything like 115K domains. >
> So the need for a shared list has been expressed a number of times. The real
> question is who steps up to provide such shared lists.


Dnswl.org counts about 25K domains.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email