IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 31 March 2024 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 7C1DCC14F5FC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 kaPHN8_YkEha for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1305EC14F5E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1711902738; bh=ye3WZTGJwMdPIyLmnqJO2G0UA0p4/NzH0pVq/6TwK8c=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=AUP1ay9fp+5FTvjFWg8kvOdmNPJsQvkHHTvhO6tV2bJ62aCXUts7C+Z6LVkJb/fMd xsuNmGHcVZwz+g454nE6ArxUimdFaO1iSuSZ9xcHrfZRd3dPeoylhdlh1MRxLZ0G4Y muChcrHaikmfpkyEmJM8o30P6EXJx1f5ALccdO9Lg/nQFHUb6xlirYaUIj2Qv
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC264.0000000066099012.00002F5F; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:32:18 +0200
Message-ID: <d4405d75-f22e-4cdc-92d9-71a3fc258c13@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:32:18 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfPwJHKGyLjTkdGDqkMeK4RQX4Fj0rw-Upn0cLZ+cE74aA@mail.gmail.com> <2cdd13ec-9d7f-4732-91ea-9c8983d7a28c@tana.it> <CAH48ZfzaNR2A6zUWVeeoay+UHLHTzja9f5RGfAt5htXd21C0KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfzaNR2A6zUWVeeoay+UHLHTzja9f5RGfAt5htXd21C0KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qkIsgfvt-dYvklPp7OaO0fOpLLM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:32:33 -0000

On Sun 31/Mar/2024 14:22:04 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
> On SPF, our document should say simply,
> " a DMARC-compliant evaluator MUST NOT reject a message, based on SPF result, 
> prior to receiving the Data section and checking for aligned and verifiable 
> signatures."


Nonsense.  Rejecting at RCPT TO is much quicker than waiting for the whole 
message.  People who publish -all know what they do.

I also reject based on RBLs and private IP lists; does that affect DMARC 
compliance?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email