Re: [Tools-discuss] Weird messages from IETF/Google Mailservers (WG: PALS WG Adoption poll draft-schmutzer-pals-ple)

I don't think these are DMARC failures, if you look back at the
original error messages that Toerless forwarded.

There's another variant that I've seen:

> This is the mail system at host ietfa.amsl.com.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
> 
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
> 
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
> 
>                    The mail system
> 
> <bob.hinden@gmail.com> (expanded from
>     <expand-draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis@virtual.ietf.org>): host
>     gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:4023:c06::1a] said: 421-4.7.28
>     [2001:559:c4c7::100      15] Our system has detected an unusual rate
>     421-4.7.28 of unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect
>     our 421-4.7.28 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been
>     temporarily 421-4.7.28 rate limited. Please visit 421-4.7.28
>     https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedRateLimitError to 421 4.7.28
>     review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines.
>     n8-20020a056e02148800b0030f25d70b82si1211024ilk.99 - gsmtp (in reply to end
>     of DATA command)
> 
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> (expanded from
>     <expand-draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis@virtual.ietf.org>): host
>     gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:4023:c06::1a] said: 421-4.7.28
>     [2001:559:c4c7::100      15] Our system has detected an unusual rate
>     421-4.7.28 of unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect
>     our 421-4.7.28 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been
>     temporarily 421-4.7.28 rate limited. Please visit 421-4.7.28
>     https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedRateLimitError to 421 4.7.28
>     review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines.
>     n8-20020a056e02148800b0030f25d70b82si1211024ilk.99 - gsmtp (in reply to end
>     of DATA command)

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 02-Jun-23 02:46, Barry Leiba wrote:
> But we *are* finishing work to standardize DMARC:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/
> ...and there is a huge controversy in the working group about what
> normative things to say about this, and whether we should say anything
> normative at all.
> 
> But this is something different; gmail appears to be seriously
> overstepping.  I checked the DMARC record for telekom.de (TXT record
> in _dmarc.telekom.de), and here it is:
>     v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;ruf=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;
> 
> They are publishing a "p=none" policy, which should *not* trigger a
> rejection because of failure to authenticate.  Yet gmail is rejecting
> it anyway (as if the policy were p=reject).  I will ask my gmail
> contact about this.
> 
> Barry (chair of the DMARC working group)
> 
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:38 AM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2023, at 7:12, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>
>>> Please complain with the ART email folks. It is the IETF that standardized all those
>>> email "security" mechanisms such DMARC that google is now using to effectively make
>>> email unusable for many people (and this is primarily what i heard from outside the IETF).
>>
>> IETF did not standardize DMARC: RFC 7489 is an informational specification published via the independent submission track.
>>
>> Unfortunately many people and organizations, including some that are mandating the deployment of DMARC and publication of “reject” policies, so not understand the difference between informational and standards-track.
>>
>> -Jim
>>
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss