Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 30DD43A0FF0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:45:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 p_2fhrfrp5Eo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 948D83A0FF5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id t7so4767693pfh.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=myy/KrriTz5JcBG7W43rBmhMpkaSf0h+XfPsc05zNjY=; b=AZ/ZAuQqAbn1jco9bAgkSZbU08KBhTosiRFZoWDnsZy2E7UtAL20Z2+r+Gnjzn0JK9 oxmhHCuWVsnQxwz1+/2hcFOR0vV4aJTghBZfgGRtTzPWrzbZVDF5whdUdvfb+HeXC3CS oE7n9p/z9/FbftBW9UyInBUdsu7V4UBeNJEEdJRauByISgu55o5JndQVCFkilOqinVu4 On23MZHnqtoMws2Vs6zh5ploi6obVOGlDns5iIBEkw5GbxbQX9GkzAKAiC1DcDckEBHJ awaRLsSO3I7L0kovaSeBkqJa3Q9wik1/77SD8sUtTJdABc7budZo+4CAtvvNF3sGR3Rx Jkng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=myy/KrriTz5JcBG7W43rBmhMpkaSf0h+XfPsc05zNjY=; b=goF8B28taMmTLEjhVSuSk7LkSr9mlfBqSETgb1HgO3mES/5EcS52tMWcmASukNvCVH yKm3utOmIBtXWnAwBL5ttad+2Ehg9xBZsslNRyZi/A4vK4EPrhKDcfl43vlOvaW29MvU 0iRSxvnm/IBZqmKp8YZBsWNPV1v++iE1d4qHdi1V8cYzc24Ssx7CGN5EuBmIO06MF3vQ uKPKWGRx7QRC78Uj/GFwvJEzc/9Z0IIR40Fp5RgwQqhbTLnRhor/+9Wo8R2LCoQgbIVi nX1GlEva/fMAj7LFPJJRN5oMYowFoonhj5GmqbooO5ffDMFX9GL6Zgytu7MfLuL7w+nK v5Uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xJnZLBXAiQalNLjsnUJ99ZkXeP3rDmusAESBdXLKww3QgCYT7 0oRgbWNSXDhuDl4Z1A/zm/fDND+XZ+wRFg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw59v4UuYItyIfBgQ3F6g9iKB3iRz428A/om0Urm8cto4sOW/VvGvWEv4XIrLWBAvzC8PTYRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1422:: with SMTP id u34mr626277pgl.153.1607121917584; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s15sm4732576pga.43.2020.12.04.14.45.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:45:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <134860ee-5fbf-2fb3-a5b3-4be68806ab22@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6veBqY1fUuoy3Qm=vfrV51_5YyoS0P4SLSbKJP_Qrcn-A@mail.gmail.com> <7224575d-685f-5020-073e-c1880acecc88@mtcc.com> <7e459496-61f8-ddcd-713c-3b6be448090c@gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <2cecceac-1add-44ec-6e16-e157fee293fe@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:45:15 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7e459496-61f8-ddcd-713c-3b6be448090c@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oEs-tFcRdgezj0ef9QStLlCknZo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:45:20 -0000

On 12/4/20 2:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/4/2020 2:38 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> That seems really strange because that pretty much describes DKIM as 
>> well, and it's very standards track. And adsp which dmarc made 
>> historic was standards track, and certainly had all of the same 
>> issues with mailing lists, etc. 
>
> DKIM did a version of the same thing, but with less time between 
> publishing the non-IETF work and then having a working group to 
> produce and IETF version:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4870
>
> vs.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4871
>
>
yes, but the new version was standards track. that's what i'm finding 
surprising.

Mike