Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sun, 06 December 2020 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 DE7363A0CE1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 20:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 iq3Wd0_9AlJ6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 20:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C2A63A0CE6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 20:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id j1so5368689pld.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 20:18:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=r79mSKMhro0ny8FHnJanijzU4wDYiatAVm7TOkRD0GE=; b=Ex4Uf4vpudIssEIBxyfmdEUm0g8AJbkHaOvmgIbETppIme8/t5XNIIKoDfTNCAJOfK VQD9dOtusdy0nDgqjkY4BmtaE44q2pBbf/aNkbLHJ7WvatJGOgX3OxkGbG8VppS2dTaW eqRJ5eIRVRS3agFMwZefzuFui9ctry/4or66ue5vUwBzRsSapNXamncYxpjGQF8F2IBz pzfkGuQmb5EJ69tOkWeFprGfmrC4Ns28zFmpz7FbFN+bHjqBOEMvwo4mJAgCJwRFpmVY G9BdkIndOclgRuXoGEB9hGxFttZRS/RfmMW56b3QLZOA8kzggliQ3gCEGkExICySFCTP ZD/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=r79mSKMhro0ny8FHnJanijzU4wDYiatAVm7TOkRD0GE=; b=myscDuCwQ8CayxpVK2Lr6iSUMHu8/NAJ0lsv5IleClK6I9q0+hPBFh53BsCshCu/6U AYc/nPYSyj5ZyaIwaXlReV16qeXyi5UzchhaZ99Es6/ZlmHlL2FFZ28WMPotbWkXN85g I7KD0MxYRP3dQGiI/bT63z+8nNGdsW1pui4hdJN1f0qXylQ+cpPG4i5B0tKfIgH8kI1K drQXDOwJCIVipdvol0lTl8UKRWtuU/Aoy5GRSl20On1O6DT/A7vbUk/ZubZ/Dizbm9nM Y105RHEVey0MW2Uic3xOfFA7OuuYS/v8xFUEVO0ZkNjvcgAcNJulhJEzQLUE0+5Xkp7u YryQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531giz1gsfQursNgOHsYsuEwHrO2/btyDog6e663L+Ts956Pqg71 7kkd3P+QKEjxeZnqwUfZQFk/AHszBdAE+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDtZr/O9ZVeE2T8Zu6TXM0F9J2svaGrT4jhZYEUGh8Ns3g1RT8burL7NHRQJIcl+0q7AAOhQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:b029:d9:d374:68d with SMTP id c8-20020a170902b688b02900d9d374068dmr10573920pls.9.1607228319707; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 20:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-33.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 14sm9995708pfz.54.2020.12.05.20.18.38 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Dec 2020 20:18:38 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com> <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net> <d8dc2644-cbcf-d3a1-c5fb-46fdf5bec819@taugh.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <6b50c95c-b994-16ec-e9ae-9f08d7cdcb25@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 20:18:37 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d8dc2644-cbcf-d3a1-c5fb-46fdf5bec819@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uLv_g8-7QuTooKmO31b2t3wf9JI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 04:18:43 -0000

On 12/5/20 8:14 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Jim Fenton wrote:
>>> Of course not.  That's just the tiny gorillas stamping their teensy 
>>> feet. Why would anyone expect that the people publishing that flag 
>>> actually understood what it meant?  Many will just turn it on 
>>> because someone said it's "more secure."
>>
>> FWIW, I don’t think a lot of the people publishing p=reject 
>> understood the implications of that, either. This is not 
>> significantly more arcane.
>
> Then I think we agree.  There's no difference from p=reject and 
> p=reject-I-really-mean it.


If the operating assumption is that people implementing DMARC is that 
they are all illiterate, then our project is done.

Mike