IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)x

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D995C1A0043 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 P45-8Hb8mpDk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEDD71A0028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1X7q9b-000Jqz-S7; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:11:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:15:36 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)x
Message-ID: <1C6468F6C7AB38FC3996C8E2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <53C7E02B.9050405@dcrocker.net>
References: <20140717024645.1605.qmail@joyce.lan> <EAC6F6031A4AF95070AF35C5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <53C7E02B.9050405@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.115
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rp6qo6WWLexN0z_Suxg4fLGVCmE
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:15:52 -0000


--On Thursday, July 17, 2014 07:39 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/17/2014 7:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>...
>     but the IETF has, at
>> least IMO, tended to avoid protocols that favor large
>> providers but hurt small ones 
> 
> While that certainly sounds appealing, I'm not aware of any
> IETF policy or pattern of practice in that regard.
> 
> Please supply some documentation for it.

I have been asked to not go there and am complying.

>> To me, that makes decisions about damage-mitigation work for a
>> non-essential protocol complicated because one way to
>> eliminate the damage is to not support the protocol at all,
>> possibly including stripping its headers whenever they are
>> encountered.
> 
> What 'headers' are you referring to?

Perhaps it would have been more precise to say "delete all
DMARC-related headers", i.e., DKIM and/or SPF ones.  While that
would be pretty drastic in some respects, whether it is
justifiable depends on perceptions of the damage that DMARC can
cause.  I think that is a topic for WG discussion.

See my response to John Levine.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email