IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

"J. Gomez" <jgomez@seryrich.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jgomez@seryrich.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 8A26821E80E4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lK8DDdbgJBON for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eh.msi.es (eh.msi.es [213.27.239.123]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15A821E80B0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from servidor3 (62.82.191.195) by exchange01.exchange.msi.es (192.168.223.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 04:21:27 +0200
Message-ID: <42268ECB3A1E40458A319239C9E1F963@fgsr.local>
From: "J. Gomez" <jgomez@seryrich.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20130402015646.6502.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:22:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.4657
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4913
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:21:29 -0000

On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:56 AM [GMT+1=CET], John Levine wrote:

>> The point remains: in what form or shape Terry's optional DMARC
>> extension hinders DMARC's goals? 
> 
> As I've said several times already, it causes DMARC failures on valid
> mail, provoking complaints to the recipient mail system.

Only if the sender has explicitly "opted in" into Terry's proposed optional extension to DMARC. So there will be no innocent bystanders hurt.

Terry's idea, as I read it, is that his extension is non-default behaviour to accomodate marginal cases. So you would have to explicitly choose to shoot yourself in your feet to receive any potential pain.

Regards,

J. Gomez

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email