Re: [dmarc-ietf] ESC for Failed DMARC Validation

The wording you're using seems inconsistent to me.  Specifically, you're
saying that x.7.30 means one thing when attached to a 200-series reply, but
the opposite when attached to a 500-series reply.  I would prefer to see
two separate codes if you're going to do this.

But the bigger question is implementation.  Who would make use of this,
either as a sender or a receiver?

-MSK

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:19 PM Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
wrote:

> Hello Murray,
>
> ESC X.7.20, X.7.21 and X.7.22 are glued to return code 550, while I
> propose an ESC, that works also with 250.
>
> Apart from this, X.7.20 and X.7.21 cannot be used instead of the proposed
> X.7.30:
>
> If a site sees a valid DKIM signature, and previous experience with the
> domain signing DKIM leads to increased trust in
> this domain, then the signature is acceptable, but it does not have to
> align with the From: address.
>
> With X.7.22:
>
>       Description:        This status code is returned when a message
>                           contains one or more passing DKIM
>                           signatures, but none are acceptable because
>                           none have an identifier(s)
>                           that matches the author address(es) found in
>                           the From header field.  This is a special
>                           case of X.7.21. (This violates the advice
>                           of Section 6.1 of RFC 6376.)
>
> If “none have an identifier that matches the author address found in the
> From header field” means, that the DKIM part of
> DMARC fails, then this ESC can be recommended by the DMARC specification
> to signal to the sender, that the DKIM
> implementations of sender and receiver disagree, as a light substitute to
> the failure reports.
>
> Greetings
>   Дилян
>
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 13:01 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:52 AM Дилян Палаузов <
> dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> wrote:
> > > I mean an enhanced status code, as at
> > >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes/smtp-enhanced-status-codes.xhtml
> .
> >
> > RFC7372 registered some for exactly this purpose (though not specific to
> DMARC).  Its Security Considerations section talks about the privacy risks.
> >
> > I don't know if they're actually in use.
> >
> > -MSK
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>