IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com> Sun, 31 March 2024 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.alley@tekmarc.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 3CABBC14F5FD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tekmarc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hs4BU5CA_uqD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F24EC14F5E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dcbef31a9dbso2164651276.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tekmarc.com; s=google; t=1711903816; x=1712508616; darn=ietf.org; h=in-reply-to:from:content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=uOStr//hyNH35HK0AsD027e+oDCPGAmeNo9VnYPoNI0=; b=M30HBIGyfkdGQIzYT03k66jdXsM81hXJWTyJaNkh9IPcMPzOEO29EmbLZkeZg1weqW bqnPCUXrOHOa9qO1VrazOl7eYnDidYL5wqpIWIL7DNEyMOgLKXfTwgrilwMj1zwEIits f739K+l8adMS0wtHfq8Y/KSne54E+Pr4G0wtvcQjzYchSfqA+ifXO4wr94UNY2Ehl06T dVYD3uA0jwu7CDMB9do8eof6EzLFmQTN8cokmTrmJREh4I94jgihcuTfP0FNJQjK4KGW 6106D1kjIqMW0nEwV7CAdDEa3pkAI7NRpV2tn65NxqeMfqWCbIho4dbTTqVX9qlsWf87 a+FA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711903816; x=1712508616; h=in-reply-to:from:content-language:references:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uOStr//hyNH35HK0AsD027e+oDCPGAmeNo9VnYPoNI0=; b=cqUXpXNe6PS52GZGmzEA/j/cJy6cGiHAJAK7ZLE/K7O+7E0yrHWmcKxeK9jkGzr04j ndPZZFdCaoKat7prVGHFcAtbiHD7AxjCDuWlOpD2EOfVzCUi8IhXT+wJWQ5uC663ITX0 gopESAhV4H4JhmqZKVfoo27f1v+0j81VePlZOqOcBk3QHYVLDhRzgbpPKKYQFznm9Nw5 Fv8i8jLBrTAdfPKaezJ2W828gzTZe8zTRj1k7CiNHcVqELH0a7BoZNR7RSAOfYzspe1e UnAw7bJ5c3TC2udWMz1q2RpYoJWGrbJQyOScGbGUDncQatRAYVGUIlIbh7n+27Sc2+y/ XDeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQh6PiJO0Qmm7CRGeqsCJRk/wxgex21pFvhGrxaGbjCdVuq8OY hvMucqZ9wphuQTfBotbxneDprHZHiJzob+dtxdARmBgKUl/WqesEOZj1tjSYRoVl8Hj+xRQbuLo 6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFxDYBu/DmY80Io3g1M6t5NYikUko59wO1tw/S/NuwKogGe8XDqSfq0CXpbsoJ8cRnZp/5xBA==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6007:0:b0:dcc:32cb:cb3b with SMTP id u7-20020a256007000000b00dcc32cbcb3bmr6351434ybb.44.1711903815816; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.20] (162-238-103-217.lightspeed.brhmal.sbcglobal.net. [162.238.103.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n3-20020a258d03000000b00dcda3959006sm1616925ybl.33.2024.03.31.09.50.15 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------yC5ySAKJRcmKQxymNCqUVcoo"
Message-ID: <eda55c54-c149-475c-8117-bfdf3885a883@tekmarc.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:50:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfPwJHKGyLjTkdGDqkMeK4RQX4Fj0rw-Upn0cLZ+cE74aA@mail.gmail.com> <2cdd13ec-9d7f-4732-91ea-9c8983d7a28c@tana.it> <CAH48ZfzaNR2A6zUWVeeoay+UHLHTzja9f5RGfAt5htXd21C0KQ@mail.gmail.com> <d4405d75-f22e-4cdc-92d9-71a3fc258c13@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>
In-Reply-To: <d4405d75-f22e-4cdc-92d9-71a3fc258c13@tana.it>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-NkgbACai4rcR_jbiaZPvM9yhUA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 31 Mar 2024 16:50:21 -0000

On 3/31/2024 11:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> On Sun 31/Mar/2024 14:22:04 +0200 Douglas Foster wrote:
>> On SPF, our document should say simply,
>> " a DMARC-compliant evaluator MUST NOT reject a message, based on SPF 
>> result, prior to receiving the Data section and checking for aligned 
>> and verifiable signatures."
> Rejecting at RCPT TO is much quicker than waiting for the whole message.

On this, I agree.

>   People who publish -all know what they do.

I posit that there is a non-insignificant amount of domain owners that 
don't know what the consequences of -all are other than that they've 
been instructed to use "-all" by a guide online, (questionably) by an 
ESP, or by auditors or check boxes for several notorious vendor health 
checks that still recommend to use it as a best practice, or even as the 
defaults that came with their domain from <registrar>, and don't know 
any better.

I don't think it's fair to characterize SPF -all's entire usage based on 
the assumption everyone knows what it does, when reality demonstrates 
otherwise.

- Mark Alley

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email