IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Fri, 27 July 2018 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 2617B127598 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.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 cbp1lECHhwf2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 C4425126CC7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 45512 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2018 14:03:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=b1c3.5b5b2625.k1807; bh=sdq3dGhp0S1Vqp1IRhyV5ueupK4MwXklgWjRZWKAbb4=; b=U1QJm3Vx5kNrkV2VOvR618ZOydQa4CsNvWvnTgTlicxLr3jg3EVA6lWyWH/Gj9s+rbrCS3mKztD2+kHUWwWCjSGBE/0rJh+GsPIMTQatjiK7v7oazi58r8J4ae8KyA7C4TlDkhjvrc7hN/oU47tPUtvOVURs5otbh8d1BHDIEbD2zhJxONSAn2pxJVafNETa51CSmd4HYKv/no39PMRqaSnOH28mw78CNj5u3DiFr13I72WRG3xPYALgteNsD493
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 27 Jul 2018 14:03:17 -0000
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:03:16 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1807271000040.61865@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1r1gg__JY37mwTbGdTFcOjvFC5gUowX5+jpppBN=sRsag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2i3WOZmFxSdmKZ6MEzNspcQt9JK8mKSv3zj83as3DPydVPGg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1807261936130.59294@ary.qy> <CABuGu1r1gg__JY37mwTbGdTFcOjvFC5gUowX5+jpppBN=sRsag@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tLBQ1oJNpK3VgZF3lYeexSk0MWg>
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 14:03:22 -0000

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:

> 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.

Ah.  I still think it should go, but if you really want to do that, invent 
a new enhanced status code.  They're cheap.  5.7.7 isn't right, it's more 
like corrupt S/MIME bodies.

R's,
John


>
> --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
>>
>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email