IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] SPF rejection of mail to chairs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 27 February 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CC73A03F5 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KaI2vQv_Pq0P for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B1D3A0128 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDED3897D; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:48:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECE8DB0; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:49:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <36ad6759-0bce-ad05-d42c-abdd2083781c@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <RT-Ticket-282330@www.ietf.org/rt> <20191121040335.A47AD120944@ietfa.amsl.com> <253406B7-7911-4971-9ED5-D836606D3B6A@tzi.org> <rt-4.4.2-17081-1574310971-201.282330-4-0@www.ietf.org/rt> <CABL0ig51Bfs5w94vnZnTBQaQ+mC5+Vjett61Cs1d0sc_DpFsXA@mail.gmail.com> <9898.1574329972@dooku.sandelman.ca> <A7C5D382-FDE4-4EB7-9463-FB2E0884920C@tzi.org> <96dbab15-2b11-4114-8ad0-690047430d68@nostrum.com> <DB2BE9AA-1018-44B0-B926-AF27427B4577@tzi.org> <0C8935E8-7693-4FAE-85DF-33408D297F15@tzi.org> <7f34680e-4fe8-cf17-a0e9-d3696d509a6f@nostrum.com> <73AA0A63-585C-4612-9995-D9CAF79F79FD@tzi.org> <36ad6759-0bce-ad05-d42c-abdd2083781c@bluepopcorn.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:49:32 -0500
Message-ID: <7523.1582843772@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/-NMmmtld9yvzMgz19UkIZFMCxVk>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] SPF rejection of mail to chairs
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:49:47 -0000

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
    > To clarify, we're really talking about DMARC rejection rather than SPF
    > rejection, correct? SPF does have a "hardfail" policy, but just about
    > nobody actually rejects mail because the problems with doing that are
    > fairly obvious. DMARC's "reject" policy ((DKIM or SPF) and binding to
    > From address) and the problems with it are harder to understand. But
    > there are a lot of industry people pushing DMARC, so some large domains
    > are enforcing it even though it's an Informational RFC.

And, I wish we would help them by respecting their p=reject email that
arrives by dropping it for our mailing lists, since clearly they don't want
email forwarded :-)
Yes, it would hurt for a month.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email