IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 04 August 2020 16:52 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 5E3483A0CCF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qROsPVDtv-Yc for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 891EB3A0C8E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1596559947; bh=rHEMdCLnnvLWEe4hPyjnmcrjCqCgf1n+XpB6/faOPt0=; l=1028; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A1DWhBPULaj99oEYy93vxwyPbfVcmoBrcyTIEuKgwK5OHm+v7acyNOwFkyeJtOI80 bgPLrFxzeYYmLi0nf0yRKEk7khFqv40h+MNwL2v7s2DGw769bbPqkZ+u//yTGPki2t 2AKaAB5zUjmiJMK01szE8ojyZyGkDe83+8zXCT4j0Vhml7qsGCsyS/mncwJx1
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([5.171.36.64]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC013.000000005F29924B.000008E0; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:52:27 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200802165756.3892C1DC82FD@ary.qy> <719dce3edbc54b25b6ebf248170e7eb2@bayviewphysicians.com> <CAL0qLwYFoGHL13tLOnbgf97qtgLFDo4AmutZdQvMVsuX56Vz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <fa39426a-c14b-493c-85f2-58a682461c2d@dcrocker.net> <0bc56bf161c54870b4655e98d7297f64@bayviewphysicians.com> <be655ca9-52b0-0fa6-1293-06f64a4984f0@bluepopcorn.net> <CAJ4XoYc3+uUg+1pLPxg_cS+ULTrRZFCXh3sCwmWqeF0iFetv7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <6053db20-b888-d597-476b-e76f47633fb3@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:52:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYc3+uUg+1pLPxg_cS+ULTrRZFCXh3sCwmWqeF0iFetv7A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/s5GoMmha5sv28jtwvrB-lPrX0Is>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
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: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:52:34 -0000

On 2020-08-04 6:10 p.m., Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:39 AM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>> On 8/2/20 5:43 PM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
>>> As to the transparency question, it should be clear that there will be
>>> no simple solution to the ML problem.
>>
>> Actually, there is: If your domain has users that use mailing lists,
>> don't publish 'reject' or 'quarantine' policies. Generally this means to
>> just use those policies for domains used for transactional email.
>>
>> Unfortunately we seem to be focused on very complex technical solutions
>> to a misdeployment problem.
>>
>>
> There is another solution. Move users to a separate domain from the domain
> your transactional mails are sent from. You can also put users on a
> separate subdomain.


Yet another solution would be to not use DMARC.  The status quo ante.

While p=none is a technically valid position, there seems to be a
demand of a mail infrastructure where spoofing is not allowed.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email