IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 section 5.2.2 should be stricken

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Fri, 27 July 2018 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 A06B4130E5A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 MyWt7jqw60Ck for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 E0ECA126CC7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id o8-v6so3970710edt.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=C1zNs54ATWAKX1gvRwCJaqPCiktXFNl+FjrxD57w+0U=; b=IREcCH+c17dFApb1T4tAJwVcdqNweSDnmwEkAGpozFz11BDV0cmsicGr3qmXo03atO GoLujHCJO52zVAJ+xIXp4EIEqgKK2mtsuoHWpgkSmH5+Y8zKjYkkdVCcNhmqucmAHrS7 RwApkE4d4PXVBTr2ht5Ibk/aFnG0MrvHqpUoA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C1zNs54ATWAKX1gvRwCJaqPCiktXFNl+FjrxD57w+0U=; b=Ek4ZquBlEAIjD5c3+iK0VaBfEIvZbyV2xm4drb/4gDFz5CPJqdHkUCW0TcwGwC2qHM eb9zM/OGTmzsGAp60Rj4kBF65JGfEqkq2VvNgxqcgQ9/wmjBSUSw97rF0hfbGrii6Ece iWgvzAJmSUuePM1gio38hWkRatf8YfgHqPU4S0DkbrUzaq2wlO4sGf+i3mTJxuSQdVXe m8989g1WBZHqmyPXT3XV1bz6CRdzzUkByabOnXhWQBtd7dq4pFAZ/Y8yLNFg6+YaPdfa JCurd+aCOCeY+qaB77JRQGulEc/vL1uBAWAs0I6N/iuaStAukVaUbpvgxNNlDn1r+kwU pwvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFrzrgT8dd5fLK7a/G0ohEW2LJPExoF0dQq4TMpc3Ylk7o3iUp7 LmbLxSQQafQsGCh2Tt95kZ6uaXwHD2ynVII8YSwY2A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcve5E5j5I+dP3bMAjgD73Te8knZVHLwYyMnWZIP34/06TcWJ/F4aO2ifoDG1VJK3A7PuqjYKm97E/R/62P2w8=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:81c6:: with SMTP id 64-v6mr7722424ede.89.1532699528163; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: kurta@drkurt.com
Received: by 2002:aa7:da87:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1807261936130.59294@ary.qy>
References: <CAD2i3WOZmFxSdmKZ6MEzNspcQt9JK8mKSv3zj83as3DPydVPGg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1807261936130.59294@ary.qy>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:52:07 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FcdU8Ote8cYo5e5y5V1C7aOpMHE
Message-ID: <CABuGu1r1gg__JY37mwTbGdTFcOjvFC5gUowX5+jpppBN=sRsag@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec82740571fb6a5c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rgIFOgOM4ebEwyJxcM-ZW6OdhvA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 section 5.2.2 should be stricken
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 27 Jul 2018 13:52:13 -0000

This is not a matter of *whether* you reject during the SMTP interchange as
how to do it in a meaningful way *if* you do so. The discussion about
signaling that the domain authentication failure led to the rejection is
the point of this section.

--Kurt

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:36 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

> I agree, this is out of place.  Whether you reject at SMTP time is a much
> broader topic than ARC failures.
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Seth Blank wrote:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16#section-5.2.2
>>
>> I am confused as to where this section comes from. It was never discussed
>> on list, and I believe it should be stricken.
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/?q=5.7.7 has no results
>> except for Dave Crocker's document evaluations with comments on the full
>> text.
>>
>> At IETF99 and on the list, there was a conversation around handling
>> tempfails, where the consensus was that we couldn't handle them. That
>> resulted in the "all failures are permanent" section of the document.
>> However, other text for handling tempfails showed up, was discussed, and
>> then removed (
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/DmRu-_P-ZtfSjA1k6KUe-Zk0ACY).
>>
>>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email