On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
This is not a matter of *whether* you reject during the SMTP interchange as
how to do it in a meaningful way *if* you do so. The discussion about
signaling that the domain authentication failure led to the rejection is
the point of this section.
Ah. I still think it should go, but if you really want to do that, invent
a new enhanced status code. They're cheap. 5.7.7 isn't right, it's more
like corrupt S/MIME bodies.
R's,
John
--Kurt
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:36 PM, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree, this is out of place. Whether you reject at SMTP time is a much
broader topic than ARC failures.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Seth Blank wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16#section-5.2.2
I am confused as to where this section comes from. It was never discussed
on list, and I believe it should be stricken.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/?q=5.7.7 has no results
except for Dave Crocker's document evaluations with comments on the full
text.
At IETF99 and on the list, there was a conversation around handling
tempfails, where the consensus was that we couldn't handle them. That
resulted in the "all failures are permanent" section of the document.
However, other text for handling tempfails showed up, was discussed, and
then removed (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/DmRu-_P-ZtfSjA1k6KUe-Zk0ACY).
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
