Re: [dmarc-ietf] is DMARC informational?

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 23:06 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 2D4393A1010 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:06:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 fGN8USoFE9DV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (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 5D31E3A100F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id t3so4434913pgi.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:06:09 -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=p0wBXm3bRNGmc7oeC54MW77Cpve38I8Z3IZlc0YQU9Y=; b=hXDZjzboONjRv8RyXJnwKtutjFSXaNNMOaFiiZYnpnpoaKBzacTLk3yGjlEdaAOgFm PW/0XYB5j/lwpINefaxBUBrSi0qmyeWKCBoEWVKmeKi26pIhpbrGjaKFv2RLlRESK8t8 emopfQNfP9RBMEVlD4Tbxi3+woSLZDzDELmEmN/0DeuFGkVk56e6p/dm8lmOv5/9zQ4i OsWs/EX70rS/Ruc/YSgBTTVt7rIqSDCf8rzUbP1N9Ijl8sx3c6f3ON+faN8UqqIIfld7 m282zSPkwJKD/oNU0yAIe8jixud3Axb+71mFFHaOxAIWLNF+vgto+6DYlcCRnBR08oQo Txnw==
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=p0wBXm3bRNGmc7oeC54MW77Cpve38I8Z3IZlc0YQU9Y=; b=io/0Nyt+pUODVfIJ+bPrQ3jEUVkUkQe27pMhnqD0opDe316vIvTb4MPl6vZba0Ch/b 2zijL4TXkMgr9Rn86a9iwxzvw3vLT+Yu5GdwT+Dz9iDZ9Gwfy8D2F+IgEuaZ0jridnw4 tP2q2FFXw77r9vnbWfr3EQh3KLUemZofemzhfVCSul+RZAAtGxlaStdVAVkHwtENBYDQ huLucjySkShF9aAvJCTC75wPhmmZF44JV6s9LgTlUTXmrTxDsDPYDZSHNFqeacEAdyT5 9zZ67nSJfIEpp38XwJMYD2YgkAsoYmamjGZCkSM6Fd3nxo+IF3jcrf1r/AzmO8PBTTnf SSNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pR9vKY6M832gPFCvikQnSowTTBLepMUDmNuvbGNaJxV0tsekO ACwOFnUVOkvczS7xwwTAyXKwspp/FSUR6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAeaAMtKeJynd2c9BDqnKuTb/3zHf9QggugwU+aO3WWvlo+Q4hszUgJTbfaMuUpX5+fGDh7Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:684f:: with SMTP id q15mr9180678pgt.125.1607123168512; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u1sm5481584pfn.181.2020.12.04.15.06.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:06:07 -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> <2cecceac-1add-44ec-6e16-e157fee293fe@mtcc.com> <5a577765-4a0d-e1bf-5321-dfeff19d107e@gmail.com> <40d7e78e-7026-c65c-383c-df4e3c537de3@mtcc.com> <6fae9ca6-d8ea-1d62-4156-249191029cc3@gmail.com> <80f9963e-20bf-cdfe-cf3b-cda7b2ed08ab@mtcc.com> <d9701f1d-1b5f-66c7-dfb9-55e2cc0542a2@gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <1563226c-6434-9b8a-5a3d-bb7fe8590221@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:06:06 -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: <d9701f1d-1b5f-66c7-dfb9-55e2cc0542a2@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/qX73KmqOFjgE7RVrm88DiHMUtzI>
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 23:06:11 -0000

On 12/4/20 3:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/4/2020 3:01 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> is responsive to my question in what way?
>
> You think "the working group created a new document" is not responsive?
>
No.

Mike