Re: [dmarc-ietf] no public hints for receivers
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 22 April 2013 15:05 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 6431821F910E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrRxy7dQL3fP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7756E21F90EE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1366643140; bh=WRW6LdRkEDxwifgCd+Ngo85RTfgM6c516bT0T4r19Aw=; l=1134; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=oWqZsVqTk4Yfkn8aw05NDgJ60I9V8oFALcBWcT98gRwO2ART+bC+wfxEYKDxlByhX ec+u65pkPQGj3zYa+UVOwFIPKWvQFv4zmpQXLQYvqVZ+R+raJ083cyublLi1k/9GWQ v6ojOPKESmfNiCI1Wcy0fPSOT9dcExCY1I+xrjyA=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.101] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.101]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:05:40 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.00000000517551C4.00003CCA
Message-ID: <517551C4.2060108@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:05:40 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20130420200935.46303.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20130420200935.46303.qmail@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] no public hints for receivers
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:05:51 -0000
On Sat 20/Apr/2013 22:09:35 +0200 John Levine wrote: > > I don't know of any publisher of VBR other than the vestigial > Spamhaus whitelist. Heck, "vestigial"!? No further thoughts on it? Maybe it was just the sunrise campaign parading a dot-com approach without further disclosure of the business model, or some other marketing detail... > My advice for senders who want to publish extra hints for receivers > is this: don't bother. That leaves another possibility: Tell those extra hints privately. If you recall my smtp-request/dns-reply sketch[1], augmenting the possibilities of replying could make sense. Each row in an aggregate report identifies a message stream characterized by some identities. A receiver could let the recipients of aggregate reports manually whitelist the rows that would cause rejection if the relevant policy was stronger, e.g. using a purposely designed web form. That semi-automated cooperation can be valuable whether or not a domain is going to strengthen their policies. It's feedback on feedback. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg00188.html
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] no hints for receivers Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] what's a list John Levine
- [dmarc-ietf] hints for receivers Tim Draegen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] hints for receivers Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] hints for receivers Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] hints for receivers Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] hints for receivers Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] no hints for receivers John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] no public hints for receivers Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] no public hints for receivers John Levine