Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?

Tim Wicinski <> Tue, 08 December 2020 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BCB3A0D45 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:15:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id McOTFVX3qPue for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85CF53A0D43 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q20so1913819oos.12 for <>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:15:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=To8Fmv+LpeBLUbnsUQNDlxqrWuY17znVm7raNz1gpOw=; b=D9EjO4uzDr+hCHH0+mtAEh3dSUjVzrc35xFRbF1BRPHE3RTonr6IQefm/jGpwZ618l eT4PoSImD7zYzoEN3Zy0pbcrKumB+g0gAQTMJ/okPHfrDoUyzRx6z/3bcrabBp53d6yF Z+lNY4nPqvBk6ZJLKvCwtpNanh8MA4ye7AmdY8VVIz///yEzwOeCoCzp23a10xyxOIVZ zUULJTmmGNR5bwcoH5mgvSuZYgA+x95dOM+rVj42xrGbnx8E1z6OYWzGMMjb9Is5FNRh 8pTtzTvEq5hfql1MmrTbJHCHjG1sCvt6VO0qJFi4S6vAVr8ykCRAGZtWPcra1JazShUl 8YMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=To8Fmv+LpeBLUbnsUQNDlxqrWuY17znVm7raNz1gpOw=; b=JpgMrowwpKYhL9vwCZP8x9yE+PuoTSt8KSIrtnNcS61nmwSdz/bASAHYxC+RBpDSAb HoJoErmleWPv64RtJSMPudzOm8UGlhAuibrNfqhle74I34KM4QawyYL4i7Hw3EKpkA6t c9HW6R1iTpu0hTW33LCtZp8mk54uGMTmw0yeRFo2gbS8upbn3+HhDZKEPbZfJY6xOuRF QzVggK19IG7/NtjXkAiguqaptp1VeCTkwQ0cnRgpn11486JREQ8Evz6Ndk5zErokm4gt Si8kCI3ahTjqnEv7CJ67Erh+zuMvEb1wpRY8ljqv4RI2itcW6hM/mO6Ozqb/swQnlKJt StNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QPm+dTbXXrgd5aoCdlOI9hlQNSfIAvLVD5jPSFdkBYz8zLde3 zAwmxr+6xe0XZfuLBo1knEJtCcgqhzn58JjOVvk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcj7PRkl3JoyIs+xYW3gTrI7UPpzbdEDMrgeZB4ukpZGne7MgK02EzuOLimieqk6uB+EZCe2pTYn5fDzbo/u4=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:dc49:: with SMTP id q9mr14897013oov.85.1607390136755; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:15:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:15:25 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Thomas <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ded5405b5e9ae1d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 01:15:39 -0000

A good section of our charter is collection Operational experiences. Doing
an Operational BCP on DMARC based on data collected is what the WG should
do after DMARC-bis.


On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:50 PM Michael Thomas <> wrote:

> On 12/7/20 4:44 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2020, at 22:31, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >> there are clearly many use cases where that isn't a problem -- like bank
> >> transactional mail -- and ADSP was just fine for that.
> > There were still surprises to be had here. I still, to this day, find
> mail direct from various senders that are wanted by the recipient but that
> fails SPF without forwarding (with a -all) or hits a dmarc=reject. I
> quarantine such for review and release to users as needed.
> >
> > Obviously lots is spam, or forwarding that broke SPF or whatever, but
> just as often it is a small piece of a big company doing something without
> fully understanding how modern email works. Oddly it is often security
> sensitive stuff, not crazy long ago it was Facebook password resets, often
> it is 2FA codes (which are probably going through a separate channel to get
> immediate delivery without risking backlog?), and other reasonably
> important things from parts of the company that I would expect to be at
> least moderately aware of the email security world.
> >
> > I agree that ADSP was theoretically fine for this type of use, but in
> practice, DMARC's feedback simplifies things a lot when a client complains
> their outbound mail isn't making it and we can quickly see what is being
> rejected.
> >
> > it is an imperfect world.
> I fear that DMARC's reporting only confirmed the obvious: this is hard.
> It gave numbers to anecdotes. That's really useful, don't get me wrong.
> Hopefully it can be used to suss out how to demarcate the long tail of
> don't care use cases.
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list