IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 30 March 2023 01:08 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 4C03EC151530 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.147 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_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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="FtS6f/vn"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="NbwnfAW5"
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 Nxx50GLLjqqS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:08:05 -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 7B686C14EB1E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18186 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2023 01:08:03 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=4708.6424e0f3.k2303; bh=5QW+VZDhojg7W6tXZj2QcBowAnGCQg8nrwOQQ2FcUZk=; b=FtS6f/vnNe+MwcFpwcc0J14+ta78ykcRCwCzEa1huN8zU3ad4Puofn/dXuhgKv3nC2rFcmBFWehZbCGJhm4w2ACAm4rrvdFU156RTU5554pXAJvh+gjMxFv9PS8wGfWbD8Q9I6rcq8RMaTtCEl+8Rxg56YEB43hd0c1en3e3yRw+gpXsB42vM7jfH3vez+cPA4AlEcRUKAQfLVd/CrfR51HHJpP3/R6zojR4IHTEEYxuBl9vLwkygK6U7SPenVy/neTmLMec8cu0GJ0OMTBsyqKhOft7tWYEA/SqiPh0gR95tdVHa5y8hSnueURPfVhdyRZkKgGUYSuYjltqpiOdUg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=4708.6424e0f3.k2303; bh=5QW+VZDhojg7W6tXZj2QcBowAnGCQg8nrwOQQ2FcUZk=; b=NbwnfAW5WaxSxTbhuNpzEZiSbTaIHqP+bYwlco77HiqTJu6xqDflAHtcnLCbow/nUAowOc5dlJOWEsC5aDPodH+Df/H/RdLlMgSaMHmSzMB8DQv22F5tDyK1kTtjA44bTfU9jmVOpg8ShwOOXWKXMLpufM9Yx/bvCofYuloHUu9M6sPVaUj5y9KUBB92i1M40lG0fvysNE6929cYfEExrJivfiOrIoihmGONrAEYAAeXzPlcsmdSYA4LD7g8W5jU4zIlYLix758A1NjCnYHYeC4XpAxLhh0uvHElrjDMy6JUxjZk/bW9Qxg+PGbfZQsmh4Ptlpc/qaOoH+lQ7F/W/A==
Received: from dhcp-8e64.meeting.ietf.org ([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; 30 Mar 2023 01:08:02 -0000
Received: by dhcp-8e64.meeting.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id EECB6B6C9D23; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:07:59 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:07:59 +0900
Message-Id: <20230330010800.EECB6B6C9D23@dhcp-8e64.meeting.ietf.org>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa+T-8A4x721ZrGvwhOwmTxSBxSxu5_-mTSGSCGjDEUAg@mail.gmail.com>
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/qSn1b-Fc0jKCSQkPD_lB_jJORN4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:08:10 -0000

It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy  <superuser@gmail.com> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:59 PM Douglas Foster <
>dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MUST seems to take us back to the unfinished debate of 3 years ago, where
>> some asserted that DMARC did more harm than good and should only be used
>> for transactional mail, which seemed to mean PayPal and not much else.
>
>Have we concluded that DMARC (or "reject" in particular) is now appropriate
>for use with non-transactional mail?

I haven't seen any objections to using it for bulk broadcast mail, but that
may be because the recipients don't care whether they get it.

The canonical example paypal sends rather odd mail, a high value domain
that sends only low value messages, since the only thing paypal sends
are variations on something happened, log in and check your account.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email