Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 15 January 2017 00:31 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C44C1294CE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 grG9oyOXB5qP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B11651294B7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t8so54765212vke.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dY/TeBxhHCvDZHpBR4z4BBU0oeMD8rvjoX9kOkL1uF8=; b=eRFZL56HbaoJuuFRx5+x+qOtyNBB01smHgtgANBF6Fr8zYYqWlwTdTJwrN7/g0r1dj oa6WHpqg/Oks3UrWiGAie7CPSJbQn5VmE+XPcZWdvXwV8oh+zkf7A739uoI/7eTIsTno jCGWO/p1m/Ux/ERkfvDZUFGoMjKFYTKf9Z5aIa1vj4PnPIq/TgMAQv2hMyAFllVRzZZa O6GNk/8f7YiNcsM0PSnP47Me7P7X172L+/vgEeGkE6pWbw8MAtnJs9JNAD7yECtrKjLO jRNpJGSRg0gGGqtYPiQPM1Y2QVBrjLwaysd3ADaaHT/sqj6EEOKZIwBZx87etf0VU+jZ FIqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dY/TeBxhHCvDZHpBR4z4BBU0oeMD8rvjoX9kOkL1uF8=; b=It4bWTKmUJRbgQFAxysEFGFT2T0GOSlgIrOHXUPtZbGTwEZL/TNu2y8nMsnGW2gJyu bOKkRkrZs2Y9ebfrKGSIhcKUqRrysnBG61ShVQkj479jj2HHe/ugnl+pdX9gmFShimbX 3qrUs3LPIkhHqECX/2bAwpuuEZ61RqmlRly8ZndQaSujMvAoy0qp4HsWgYnzZ0vEKgBH U2PWFMGmpY2r/TVSjTanEP/xj4C6G4HkxSnst2TKFxNZyUozrJVeBjDlrvxG2pyVTFf0 O9+p+auBHPt7DLNeWL86QueEZLUUj9MkSvx6BPB6i23xz5Yparp+qCIIvBN+nRsoztVd fVxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKcGsYaKYzo1oTS3yHeuNhKOxYavHAXSXVyKnjyNtBrCeayIw3bZ4lZfNj94LzIO/Bk9XVsBM2zOytAAw==
X-Received: by 10.31.5.6 with SMTP id 6mr13468665vkf.117.1484440286834; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.150 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170112213403.2324.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CANtLugMzj+cfSjmC9XHt0X3f5f_epjfCVw+5bEjYxLXpdo5Z_g@mail.gmail.com> <20170112213403.2324.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:31:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaWC9d23fUG8hb7y9wM4Mwu0Sasho8Pqifw+N8348b-EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11441d52fcb5440546172ff9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-GZJObD3d9N-szqWPauyhqNsZ6A>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Gene Shuman <gene@valimail.com>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:31:29 -0000
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > In article <CANtLugMzj+cfSjmC9XHt0X3f5f_epjfCVw+5bEjYxLXpdo5Z_g@mail. > gmail.com> you write: > >I'm currently working on a test suite for ARC, and have run into a few > >areas in the draft that could use some clarification, mostly with regards > >to section 5.2.1, which seems like it needs a non-trivial update. I've > run > >into the following issues: > > > >- Can messages with violations in their ARC sets(duplicate/malformed i= > >values, etc), still be considered valid, assuming they pass the chain > >validation algorithm under the given ordering? > >- Similarly, can messages with completely duplicate ARC sets still be > >considered valid? > > My advice is to fail them all, since that's the way to get the message > back to MTA authors to fix buggy ARC code. > [...] +1. -MSK
- [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications Gene Shuman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications Paul Rock
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC draft issues/clarifications Murray S. Kucherawy