IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 07 April 2024 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 7A5F3C14F6AD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:33:52 -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 (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="BdigINH9"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="Gfc59rbS"
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 VpclANVbeHdq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389C3C14F6AC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68123 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2024 16:33:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10a146612cae9.k2404; bh=58jEuXWOmlGlGTEdSYRm4fBG41zeTiQlhtfY5p6YnlU=; b=BdigINH9cg9wuCCsKG9yawF9tLn4G03FL/uns6kUogbw+ehkRVHhhzRpUukR4IDx5o3m7rZDO2vVCekq2JfHwsQVB+uhcVA+ghD1h9doaAXY4r3oGxeKWBsYQX2qmw6we+dr5FjculXuDyex4LpI4nkqCZTkaI0zCj9UWRkxasFjvTaIVdWnL7KuJtK5cATIccYUjE86Zhb49R+4MEhmBsSPINJFvBTVh9NIJOK7+tn0DsvrVpm0VkSnBqMhlKp99v5fzajlHeTDkKu6Avs7J8HidaFjGtgxrIqbmw0EJdeHELK6NR8LbNppP7kuHi16UWlWl7Pjq3kDksavPGwbNA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10a146612cae9.k2404; bh=58jEuXWOmlGlGTEdSYRm4fBG41zeTiQlhtfY5p6YnlU=; b=Gfc59rbSCfVHpJPRNjMJF9X0JaBW5oNo+bPvuq7HdRMqmmQ1XTS8n2vHXv93hmF4drB+DYK/Cc6Grtv7BZgYZDvTXK46o0Me7bQ/jbZbq2xOAA9xftvK3pxznOtJgR3yRai1qBnM2of+ZBlOM9m3UZX+9jl0+mqiRlq74x8+gdLBu7XZy04aIcLLj/lkI8Z7N/lYYfFDYhuCG/bgiATDBGRNWziU7FD0KjxQQGCkZBPEPNPxKMP/hvMEuwJ1DiXf1rfHo6/XyGJZG6HW0cUo92/CFHk/rRbFYNdt1yebcOM3H2uOg9SS4uUCH1mB/AHtAS2mU49Vz/ZnKtZ5kPy9AA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 07 Apr 2024 16:33:44 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1C5B8874555B; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B569874553C; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 12:33:43 -0400
Message-ID: <768352fb-55bd-c5f0-3518-e3d30ee6ed95@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Neil Anuskiewicz <neil@marmot-tech.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <7EE1056B-5CA0-47B2-9F6D-ADB05AD39F50@marmot-tech.com>
References: <afe488dd-bcb1-30e6-161c-45c90d885725@taugh.com> <7EE1056B-5CA0-47B2-9F6D-ADB05AD39F50@marmot-tech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/juqw4EqYwyOl2CGM_XsPMutVgy8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all
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, 07 Apr 2024 16:33:52 -0000

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>> This WG should have finished a year ago.  Unless you think something is so broken that it's worth more months of delay, forget it.
>
> To be clear I was suggesting considering deprecating the hardfail modifier only as it’s archaic. I was not saying deprecate SPF.  That said, i don’t know what the unexpected consequences of this change would be. I think SPF still has its place. Maybe they’ll make some adjustments over in the SPF working group.

It's not a terrible idea, but this is dmarc-bis, not spf-bis. It's way 
outside the scope of this WG.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email