IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2023 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 53877C1522D7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D73vRpGXkGIY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (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 E9EC3C1522CB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-440c368b4e2so1492425137.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1687455340; x=1690047340; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/n+vl9xhCNGwRCFUijp+WD5SzSjkz8PxNqalj6XOaUM=; b=Dz0uQeKOw3F0faj1fRwkzRn9LBKPl8XCGcF4FHf+KwY2YkhX093V4KdFCgm9Bsyefm 4hXOXMgP0soqNtosKJF1rkbq2PrIE6MagpA/CPAr9sNE2Bvw3jp4T/hZp1U2O2xiAekE EZIvvPKuHsatMXy/5h/SbpI8d5MHucdrwo9SbCi99O9uci4J8ujI4S5b+3XCUszp8IBY jFnalkBsxY6FFKPNjYo/6AekKIgW2hmk0PEj1bFQMd8GbZELZEeuF3WgUgS+s2leC7XV ZNlarRqlTvFjgzDdey15tKYV5H0EvW12ns2OMOgXg0rQhev8WiV03cAejS0H3rEdCEnT GWlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687455340; x=1690047340; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=/n+vl9xhCNGwRCFUijp+WD5SzSjkz8PxNqalj6XOaUM=; b=NJ9VDzg73Q3JlpasSFbmYgusM9EuOKnNd8QvptkhX32+YkKX6vEu4gCV+CPcy71J3l 1Rj10mJayKRQvFMhUkEXUhB0q9KJMzDJd2WZY91pYCNHqiKFJnOO7qrX3llOOhiNmb5t 2TtEoAF3wZ+Ly6kytxnUooQ6fYUR5HRKC9bRsi2SCSlPUZadLEjTiWdL1iFSrisTX6/A WiO3bd4OAUwQR9Tv0JbjabPyrbKWLrIKNbg9KYPGnYwe4bbdQQ8uVPtVW1JKX2fOL5kB eKK89+5Ubau0jDSk4wO56eS3jzayrrJuQgndMQBZBuMzRs14XL6i3dhlF7Eqav6knCZv JF6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzFNkp+4ypE+V3H4a082mVxvVCRIiyZ2guTqZpw25adD2MZT1kH ESoCMOoO6JihvQeYsTLixV1cvtdfDAfl855A6V0uRg1x
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5KgvKOxHiNWmaZS7HrpYzaJkF0vQ8gQHJWHuMy/dIfM4f2D5RfD/iR4nUoLYl4s14Tmd4FGvjLUhPpNlS7qBc=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed44:0:b0:43d:6660:581b with SMTP id m4-20020a67ed44000000b0043d6660581bmr8593183vsp.5.1687455340499; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi> <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it> <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi> <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi> <5d9a0b0f-8777-2494-d779-376c6ab8b37d@tana.it> <xtudkqv5sqxs4c2nnilna5lf4b266br4xwdjwoq4fdyjpgzjln@xdb5rldfeini> <3087d0fa-91b4-62b4-fc64-a705c7f0b672@taugh.com> <CAHej_8=VnOC1Pms2JKJYG=2Dqtp2nc9oe-j=aEmNfvGuNhvzZA@mail.gmail.com> <a9505fda-ed21-1fc6-adb6-f231225a1ceb@tana.it> <CAHej_8nNGQR9Bm59dsu=XG7iBGyyW=SCh4=0cBM8NWodHyo6pQ@mail.gmail.com> <2de0ca2a-2c18-91ae-f306-38e70aaebf8e@inboxsys.com> <CAH48ZfwjMEwG=b7EsKkXQLzPgcysMLOj2QhZ7_8fs6uQ7zxXYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfwjMEwG=b7EsKkXQLzPgcysMLOj2QhZ7_8fs6uQ7zxXYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:35:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYeEJ6H_AFZaimzh_dFWCFqeLzUaD6ouLsZM+rVSXh8YhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastiaan de Vos <sebastiaan=40inboxsys.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025182a05febb50a8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-TYcmCqSooCSjnpY0lVIioPOz40>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 17:35:42 -0000

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 8:59 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, but the messages often get sent anyway.   So the evaluator who
> blocks the message as malicious impersonation is blocking incorrectly
> because the fail result is unreliable.   If it only affects nuisance
> advertising, the error may not matter to the evaluator.  But I think the
> problem affects some messages that matter to the recipient.
>
> Doug
>

Blocking a message that fails authentication does not mean that the
evaluator assumes "malicious impersonation". It simply means the sending
domain in the From address has published a p=reject policy and has
requested that messages which fail to authenticate aren't authorized by the
domain, nothing more and nothing less.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email