Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112) - Proposed language

Alessandro Vesely <> Wed, 16 June 2021 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741473A20E5 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1vXNybjLS5cx for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90AB53A20E4 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1623865870; bh=iTC4Mz5QojbG3ZdWHHg/hvW3baueCKKD6CnMAReo4Ac=; l=1056; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BM12dZUHZMVaTVFZaldKP9dU0AWy1KZrirx7CcQ8aLviA/noClDsi/U7tE/EfVq7x qu5yCGl1E1V5C93eOtndzcSLLm9OEB2ByvUHl1ldhawan1nLzF7y+zhhrhcoJn9B4K mRf5Fhvwt0qfHxWMYT9rBU0hhlYpWE1PiCuO2zgSpYJjbnziXq4LvWY37j4ek
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.0000000060CA3A0E.0000712D; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:51:10 +0200
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20210616160110.09D6011E70FD@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:51:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210616160110.09D6011E70FD@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #11 (and #112) - Proposed language
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:51:24 -0000

On Wed 16/Jun/2021 18:01:08 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <> said:
>>However, to reject based just on NXDOMAIN is too harsh.
> I dunno, in my experience it's quite common, and if you do, the chances of losing a message you care
> about are negligible.

It's been customary to reject NXDOMAIN in smtp.mailfrom since when I recall it. 
  To reject NXDOMAIN in header.from is (was) an ADSP feature which doesn't seem 
to be very widespread.  DMARC dropped it a long time ago.

> In any event, this has nothing to do with DMARC.  If for some reason you want to do a DMARC evaluation
> of a non-existent domain, you can use the organizational domain or I suppose PSD.

It might make sense to reject that ~30% which doesn't even have an 
organizational domain (dubbed totally astray in my previous post).  But I still 
receive From: <> on a mailing list.  Rejecting that 
risks getting unsubscribed.  Perhaps mailing lists deserve a special permission...