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

The same thing can be said for every step of email processing that comes 
before DMARC.  If I reject your mail due to your IP being on a block list, you 
also don't get DMARC feedback about it.

It was long enough ago that I don't remember if it was RFC 7489 or early in 
this working group, but we did have extensive discussions about this before 
and that's how we got where we are.  I don't think there's a lot of value in 
redoing that discussion.

I think your N=5 versus N=8 topic is more important and much more on topic.

Scott K

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 1:27:18 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> Scott, I disagree.
> 
> SPF hardfail in a DMARC context is an operational issue that comes up with
> some frequency for domain owners.
> 
> We should have some minimal amount of clarifying text.
> 
> S, individually
> 
> Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer
> Email: seth@valimail.com
> 
> 
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
> this email and then delete it from your system.
> 
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 13:01 Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 1, 2024 4:45:20 PM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > > 
> > > Issue 141 has been opened to collect ideas around the discussion about
> > 
> > what
> > 
> > > to say in DMARCbis (if anything) about honoring SPF records that end in
> > > -all when SPF fails.
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/141
> > 
> > I don't really understand the need for this.  What to do when SPF produces
> > a
> > fail result is an SPF question.  Not a DMARC question.  Additionally, we
> > have
> > discussed this before.  Note that not even RFC 7208 tells receivers what
> > to do
> > with SPF fail.  It seems far, far out of scope to do so here.
> > 
> > On the theory that the invocation not to relitigate things we've already
> > gone
> > through won't be honored entirely in the breach, can we not do this?
> > 
> > Scott K
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc