IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Enough DMARC whinging

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 5B54F1A049F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 Cnm2cUDtbVBy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9AB1A0195 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [190.112.54.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20ED98A031 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 20:11:11 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:11:00 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Enough DMARC whinging
Message-ID: <20140505201100.GA4634@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com> <536113B1.5070309@bbiw.net> <CAMm+LwiXoW3p5uCmML4kAWXnbrrAnSCK9x5U2qeHJdVgR2r_Gg@mail.gmail.com> <E3A7C677B18263C8DF6DD316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5362943D.2020907@bluepopcorn.net> <536295E5.3080502@dcrocker.net> <5362B4C6.10904@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb_UJrjViZwxrSC=y4y8geY8-N0QOHMeBski3dEuBqB6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VOjKo7xcpmxr7D_ilEXzcJu8ueE
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: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:11:16 -0000

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:51:46PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> There is no new protocol element introduced by DMARC to DNS either.  There
> are no resource record types registered

While that is true (and is indeed evidence that there's not a
"protocol extension" here), there are several of us who regard that
particular decision as a bug, not a feature.  It seems a bizarre way
to defend the approach.

I understand the reasoning for the conclusion and I accept it.  It's
still an abuse of the DNS's data model.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email