IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 29 March 2023 18:01 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 5F89EC15C522 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="f+3dwktG"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="APvQypNA"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbTeIDSt4Anu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4E50C15C2B1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1680112898; bh=HxzOj3oOzvtNOXvvWl7jBcJpwUYPzAMhG8DPbNUj/7w=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=f+3dwktGyjNG4TWv0hNRixdBSYDPxeBIape9oTuK97KaHA2MNZ6PtvN1R/prq+unO CEWrdlUPtiQZC4j3n/6CA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1680112898; bh=HxzOj3oOzvtNOXvvWl7jBcJpwUYPzAMhG8DPbNUj/7w=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=APvQypNARdiEUv3WZNKZblSNkz2xhdC2b9xcMCBOj1jKXRo6JTRy21+/EGCgx+Jyn jCOmFOi7yYUWky3Wj7wJzdpuVj7C8CvfRBJ461mADzm9YZbkz6dZYkLM/fzB4jX/1h BA0nBAlGkdCYhi7CIvLx5/Bei2r0mKXhNfPKkj2ZYqB68ekEptuXTpwNvFvmW
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0E7.0000000064247D02.000039A6; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:01:38 +0200
Message-ID: <cc5c0a70-5a5e-37c9-94aa-dee53eb4af90@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:01:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <CALaySJ+NBg9vzqa0_t-sBf7EKXQ3A=DTyy-Vc7M-ZK9-vfJxmw@mail.gmail.com> <d02bfc46-efd1-28db-c14a-5c1365aefcbb@tana.it> <CAH48ZfwhLE0bhG9aqUjkqBpGLTXj2NmdDR2F8aMeBGvOXVX7vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa+T-8A4x721ZrGvwhOwmTxSBxSxu5_-mTSGSCGjDEUAg@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa+T-8A4x721ZrGvwhOwmTxSBxSxu5_-mTSGSCGjDEUAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/zJwsQ33Kz0oDa7rY2VPoWz-7ZLY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:01:54 -0000

On Wed 29/Mar/2023 15:25:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:59 PM Douglas Foster wrote:
> 
>> MUST seems to take us back to the unfinished debate of 3 years ago, where 
>> some asserted that DMARC did more harm than good and should only be used 
>> for transactional mail, which seemed to mean PayPal and not much else.
>
> Have we concluded that DMARC (or "reject" in particular) is now appropriate 
> for use with non-transactional mail?


Not yet.

Anyway, receiver-side forwarding (with possible footer additions e.g. by 
anti-virus) make the transactional vs. human distinction not so much significant.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email