Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C7CC51A02E8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 s0oLE4kg_xUv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285611A027F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id kl14so11376250pab.32 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FRF9QlMYQiWgh76e1YDJ4BL2oDs3B5uC6d7xBaKHGGQ=; b=FlgfM2X8F5dgAvYef/G/aCdTwNRUJwDSFemgyg7n/aGZRqlZE8lxUQHXCZ8zWI5vOK hyYHeYLu4Nyt2R+LCaD9KqqyIUONR1xUe0clzxMWYaWsRqj4vjNRxeh1jwxi0tSMZGNv /Y+wv0MJLmxkxZKwZ/qWvIEo1Pbg/MecCa5RcjM675ApnT8nM8qdyNU89r6izSM8pQnz YQkT/PtxdK7voL1+FOs+jzDZpL5o4QUF6oqLYGSAcUSho9xv3QlNf9J8/GbwTLX05CnZ wk/94T9mkye7mbAzjoENvXd8pQ9LR3NBirB91Z1BD/6wOBwKE5l2hulN4Gl2+PGXVZqu qa+g==
X-Received: by 10.67.1.39 with SMTP id bd7mr11033015pad.15.1397680663021; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (198.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ek2sm48901519pbd.30.2014.04.16.13.36.52 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534EE9EA.9060403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:36:58 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listsebby@me.com>, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAKW6Ri5f5KZyJeL7RTG2T000Qd+t61KCofNmG2JZv+nKi94Uug@mail.gmail.com> <534C0078.3070808@meetinghouse.net> <CAKW6Ri6OUmxGaBOGR2hoWpDOGWsVQ9tQ2Q9ogkT5wzFhFJLBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <534C2262.1070507@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb5p_V3i-NGhKJZBeO0qKHm1xiAq1E3nYkBzVUAXkRPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5HWMaGMa_oLKwq5fzSUzJG=jAL1qojY1i6_tibEAxq8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaik1ft+AcACoc+kvKtCRt_gGvM6ov7c2yj_Uwyy3drNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKW6Ri5_=GyOQijZMM+mqAoaEQzePGysBy9WVjN9yHO1zf3d2w@mail.gmail.com> <534C8F2B.9060903@gmail.com> <534D5516.7060902@dcrocker.net> <534D98CC.9080400@gmail.com> <2478F2D1-2E08-45D7-86A2-36443959E272@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <2478F2D1-2E08-45D7-86A2-36443959E272@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UcBTq5B4ItUVZqRzkIkgh-5P8RA
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:37:47 -0000

On 16/04/2014 18:58, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:38, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The mailman fix is worse than the disease. I think the .INVALID fix is
>> much better, because Reply-all will still work.
> 
> Reply-all should still work with the Mailman fix; 

It doesn't work *properly*. Firstly, this message wouldn't be sent
to you with CC to the list, which is the correct semantic.
If you weren't a subscriber, you would never see it. Secondly,
the first line above would read:

 On 16/04/2014 18:58, IETF discussion list wrote:

which is untrue.

On 17/04/2014 07:01, Jim Fenton wrote:
...
>>From the latest DMARC draft, section 8:
> 
> "If the RFC5322.From domain does not exist in the DNS, Mail Receivers
> SHOULD direct the receiving SMTP server to reject the message."
> 
> So if a receiver that is implementing DMARC is faithful to the draft,
> that won't work very well (nobody has gotten a TLD allocation for
> .invalid, I hope?)

DMARC isn't a standard, though, so standards-compliant mail receivers
shouldn't be implementing it. And that particular rule seems completely
out of place even if DMARC was a standard.

    Brian