Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 02:27 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 025F33A0AF7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:27:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.64 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, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 Q-fF6PFd5Bna for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 096113A0AF6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id n10so6047940pgv.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:27:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ZiDY7+ff1ErKmOdeBGf/ZOCnyr8/uaPf0tAAE7Dde2c=; b=pLqTnOmN+DW9wEKX5LVW8M3TF4WVNSiSyUP4SUfzBSoD9NCbnLpd2j2Qsd/ESHyz4L IRFW4nJzxWGnUWNIcy5CjunGRE0FNLVqCl+WMV3IrsTR77VaMi6Mdm5HAE6F0B0ZacMZ k4mkh0qJfMUCf1GyfU8DYOGAeanA9Nyc+JD47sx6B5gdJ8RIlLp00c6X2VzGpxxAau+L XKgm150ROUHfkjuNqE530PLd4k+iokX5rf3laGoCP4TTdvniKAUy3PYYgwmT8J6c8J3C XKPWF6s4h9Bsg405Qv9vBOP1W6Bc+qbdrhODuKySkjl1/Ay3owfDyFmwozv3fTWNOVcM 4t7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ZiDY7+ff1ErKmOdeBGf/ZOCnyr8/uaPf0tAAE7Dde2c=; b=A1IjkqJyQP95/UIkA5PbrqbRbqRPgSX6N+tEAg8EDWdWv1wIGVsSWHbVhPod33kzJ9 NPBGGQ5a8uyzpJ/dRamUtUs6akLSYW2YUfMO5RqTgM262HuDPHM+/+C9LQRuOFvBx8ri tVF039mfUe9ohp+L3WPG3yhFA3VOL0UmYUkkt/uwMXRvxduG4tvQFwCBWUrHCjGZtfpj ikaB2bPe0jzCRqPCIoe/7QshygI1TMfwAZeoFv0zt+hxLD+llZDAekzNi2n+JXjtxdHJ kqd04tsggnWISZAhmHnMxhqDFYIQ6eATwHzJ4hjljv1jpQZuHUQqSk+fifgdEh0HJgHo U4Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533HWEE3YjSz7+WQtCrJMA+1AXv3jhqbzYNZqeAhrlt11eRmnGRI K3OJsV5Hc7XdUe18WWfimjKM7hzNTSw3Ww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdhJvDcrh19RrzJkjtnXWU1mtccot4gmsnqsOcvJhCmGiR9VwB4kbjs9AsbDhT9wVzeqE4dQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5944:: with SMTP id g4mr13499786pgu.446.1607221622856; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f123sm9419232pfa.89.2020.12.05.18.27.01 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:27:02 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <23735838-82bb-d09d-a3f2-8a53af621467@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:27:00 -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: <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/p0fCRyQpGZN97HLLlB3RDg0QHIA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 02:27:08 -0000

On 12/5/20 6:22 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> The question I have is: Should DMARC have a policy (or policy 
>> modifier) that says, “Do not accept modifications to this message?” 
>> In other words, that the originator values the integrity of their 
>> messages over deliverability.
>
> Of course not.  That's just the tiny gorillas stamping their teensy 
> feet. Why would anyone expect that the people publishing that flag 
> actually understood what it meant?  Many will just turn it on because 
> someone said it's "more secure."
Financial institutions are "tiny gorillas"? Who knew? The federal 
government is "tiny gorillas"? What is the metric here?

Mike