We are not asking mailman to do the work of DMARC here. There is openDMARC for that.
On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry Warsaw writes: > >> For #1 you would have a rule that can answer the question of DMARC >> disposition. Rules output binary results, > > This is somewhat problematic. DMARC results are potentially > trivalent. If action is "reject" and pct is less than 100, some hits > are "rejects" and some are "quarantine". Misses are misses. So I > guess you do this with a chain of two rules, the first one verifying > the message and if that hits (ie, verification fails) the second one > rolls the dice for pct. > >> and if this rule hits, it would run an action, probably to discard >> the message, although it could also hold it or reject/bounce it. > > Silent discards without content analysis make me queasy. I guess we > can work around that by doing DMARC checks after the content checks, > although the draft implies the DMARC checks should be done early. Or > we could reject, but unfortunately we can't reject in the SMTP > transaction, so we need to issue a DSN. That makes me really queasy, > because DSNs for illegitimate mail suck all around. > > In case of a quarantine, maybe this should go into a separate queue > that silently waits for a moderator to look at the messages, and > discards them after a reasonable period of time (maybe two weeks?) So > they'd be there if somebody asks for a lost message, but otherwise no > bother. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
