IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 26 April 2023 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 CF90FC151520 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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="XxJJWxg1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="xsfU9qby"
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 SqWxlgbBD87i for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:06:05 -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 48CA7C14CF1A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88375 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2023 01:06:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15933.644878f9.k2304; bh=DE9wysL4KUVc+gSSzwYf5SCPepe1cP6GI1M2/Sv6730=; b=XxJJWxg11phB0Ty1A1gwba+uDs4Byv2kqsIBryVTeZHoNdqSr8vujbEYgMbhbZEXzmUa+/Db5RJ1VVXAEjmqG1incgIUzBk3nKRl5KToLFMXWfZ8DHml9KkxdAvlGGVZbsjZ5t8cJmJmPwVfi3oYBgvVyjI3sF8lv1aRzImGgeMdxSCtoXYiFKBaD2ifbtd24152iHQ2fdcIaRBOXrmPjCc0NFyxzzbkpB3RwfdiGUKphA698k/CYL1L6Y7qOle7qYc1sLY5dCLkS0zqVNnyK4prqLex86y18YjG8STmL7ZduLDlHEP2Z0/7CXXmhnZcHcKHA91LpWfaE1+Svx+RGQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=15933.644878f9.k2304; bh=DE9wysL4KUVc+gSSzwYf5SCPepe1cP6GI1M2/Sv6730=; b=xsfU9qby7cFxMRv/kwJW7WDMs3OFNYpcWCSgFfMwERtWuQjJs7/FGnxzGQCTOfctUGyyQs64CL1Q4f4ryiEVnvMWGX4BvXwZltYYJvJnU+dPLehKm6UYuegOs7c+tWjr8HHx4VuPGo4hyEMwBDU+foCbWF6YYJqYJDeVYfRdkr7sy8fG96vEYm8soy5uWLc99baqruOGQs0R3Acgog3thrj5kPSA1v8XTDc1MMaA8mFLWPlCxh6Rz0Sqb8nQ4FfHmYOanFmWFGY5fp2UZbDktK2/mN0SHISBPpGxkCN+X0kmjZAvpMoW5Megwi3NNhpCSldOzb1Dgdhss3cu+Qwx9A==
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 AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 26 Apr 2023 01:06:01 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id BDEC4C4E1FC2; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 21:06:00 -0400
Message-Id: <20230426010600.BDEC4C4E1FC2@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <29216533.CRhL9lMF2B@localhost>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/llYiS9N_1q9BvaxcKs5SZ79DthU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:06:11 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least 
>some traction out of both groups:
>
>> [some appropriate description] domains MUST NOT publish restrictive DMARC
>> policies due to interoperability issues

This seems like a reasonable approach. As a purely practical point, I
cannot imagine this document getting through the IESG without some
clear guidance about DMARC's interop issues.

R's,
John

PS: If anyone was going to suggest we just tell people how to change
their mailing lists to work around DMARC, don't go there.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email