IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 00:52 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 C49B811E811E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ELDYORhmLdfk for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D408311E80F8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17091 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2013 00:52:54 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2013 00:52:54 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=515a2be6.xn--9vv.k1304; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=mxKF4RvsNNmWh5VbIFo6IEhaRT6HHKl0eYmAb3GATEE=; b=E/8cGPY5AFCO9AVUWMMhc8coApYoPGuUoZksw4AE+5NBNQ5lc4DpirTvBNmAEBso7a7FDBNs5DJPoMnDEHPQXUeKI3Vc3A99piHWZth/lPhM9SrHdBIIYMojp7GF7bts05xiwxlKaaiIaaR3LD/LYkogSUU8n/4VXHgkWcOd+i4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=515a2be6.xn--9vv.k1304; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=mxKF4RvsNNmWh5VbIFo6IEhaRT6HHKl0eYmAb3GATEE=; b=Fft5kjYbmpwgaaXIdQ1GDafgDi/zbI+2TDUA04qUdYlfoUtrIpy/wJgqdbgZn3BGrlBkZR2A/X2nGhyktAjrayNk41eXo/Viz5OeLgTozOGAjpwc6DCQ/+/ucQnZX0Cy2I0mSRSCeEUMDDw7YMUl2AridhUGGY4+N7hZ/XjtqN4=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:52:31 -0000
Message-ID: <20130402005231.6202.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9b3745d8976d42df8fc9521e7f4c4b49@BL2SR01MB605.namsdf01.sdf.exchangelabs.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: tzink@exchange.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:52:55 -0000

>I agree that there is the potential for false positives. But shouldn't this choice be given to the sender?

No, of course not.  You don't get the complaints when my users lose
mail due to false positives.

If the sender can make any choice he wants, I choose to charge $5 to
everyone who reads this message.  Pay up, please.

More seriously, receivers are not going to implement complex stuff
that offers no useful extra function, particularly if they make their
lives harder and the extra stuff is to work around problems that are
better fixed at the sender's end.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email