Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 18 January 2021 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 BF0443A0C62 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=evkpWIzG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=0U2AKjdy
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 oN0krYM6QmyZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)
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 045453A0C61 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 12770 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2021 18:56:22 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=31e0.6005d9d6.k2101; bh=dM/3xkKUaNK0U9fwoMnggH4LwJJL5V4M4PeF9vEq2sY=; b=evkpWIzGh+BDhGxg/OqnxVnTkLSI0GVfM6ZVkwH/1oq8/q2Kj7q1DtJMAOQ4X9Wk27P9FooIp7jx1SYAgw5nYprci/nNDjtWSBtFIvMuGkmc/bh7fZ7lN02vWv0YES8dX2q9NZu7CnasUrx00mkSh/ienposojdDNTSiJJaFbU7rRIXv71Vwd2nMEHT4BJADpRfXbNuzSDKcjoQRzKjfWxKus+pTW+Th3x3t9pn9oohz0hRhp8Or75CEnoIQDLCsniKOIkTUHhYOyxlSbWeskUUwU4yJNMVIgs4yFyok4fipvJaurrkcSsUKhuKePrEMnFl3Jg+PNZ6cwQWTY459Yg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=31e0.6005d9d6.k2101; bh=dM/3xkKUaNK0U9fwoMnggH4LwJJL5V4M4PeF9vEq2sY=; b=0U2AKjdyFyr5AHpePFV/khnCd6TLOatEmhJQEyT/OqPwVcNuHhK0FOiSrZmQ4p2Gmaqz38HdSKIeTP7TnXynVZgF+Z+SSsLgvNk2PkRKt8qXTR528IOiGfjQfNzAxqPi6pzpcSY+eFSEOseAdfgIgvVo4cQ0+D8K9tEMf+jPii9gva+cpEeKJTYIK9ChHqr1Vccxe1Xc+w7fxEWYus/WY4E2/x+XsteiI4VGml0Vz7Em15gQBTMmqyOfNS307R7ozl1tM/W7GLnHZ8+Gu0pqTi41i2DS05FZXYwi78E5WSS6yFA3juUFN9/FePIgv3aSjTXlw/FZ8rugkkwr3t1/6A==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 18 Jan 2021 18:56:22 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 234BC6B50127; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:56:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2A96B50126; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:56:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: 18 Jan 2021 13:56:21 -0500
Message-ID: <128070e1-25e2-ed76-e4cb-a54ef746b02@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Alessandro Vesely" <vesely@tana.it>, "dmarc-ietf" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <fad5eb1c-8cea-e061-fb57-a7e5538d281a@tana.it>
References: <20210117213536.165266B2315E@ary.qy> <8b8b3304-80f5-7287-aee8-e86ff72dcd31@tana.it> <7e5b91cc-8ca8-6f7f-4c3e-83e13a85c61d@taugh.com> <fad5eb1c-8cea-e061-fb57-a7e5538d281a@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wbNb4UG8xWA4f0f3nami_yD9Hlc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none
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: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:56:26 -0000

> On Mon 18/Jan/2021 18:54:15 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
> Right, but IF one day we introduce a new policy, we'll have to be compatible 
> with installed base.  Please don't reply that we'll NEVER introduce new 
> policies...

It seems unlikely enough that I don't see any reason to worry about it 
until it happens.

> BTW, the current spec does not mean that an invalid p= implies the DMARC 
> record is broken.  If it did, it wouldn't say to check rua= in that case.

I know.  It would have been better if it didn't say that, but it's too 
late to change it now.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly