Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Fri, 05 June 2020 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 581A13A082D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=UnNawpPk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=JLCtTmWH
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 1JU735yvocrE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (dkim.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339353A082B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1759; t=1591363910; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=BZsHyQwoQxXOPJRiZmERjTFYtJY=; b=UnNawpPkaTM0imznbVMG9zHn9atQjKxeE48MWVqEhCA9LB5grUfi0NzAyWfqlf zS1NU6XxVhMeC03ri8o2plksdMNoMbljZ0PgAt6eiVXXuON7PqQ9rHdN1aMRQl+Q YJZkvNReq8oGFAYBuPHmTLpFIoNJqk7a3hmHDi/CK/DP8=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:31:50 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 2091222665.13385.2712; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:31:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1759; t=1591363884; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=GZnfqic 23vp9nTNzPEcxB8j593M1DLpi0E1757mmmog=; b=JLCtTmWH50DIYIpyAUdkFcz xDnUSa8pcjaVVN9hWnoeqkHbStkttTDfQUUQtwKT0sCcXiiX5p9YwIGkfAkQGYoY D0aueetiF3aL8Hgocjip65YsRrAWjeviLCijlBCxfABfI7DO98FVminLyOvKVJM3 RJmvRAGKDRMaKAIiWU8s=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:31:24 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 3097578890.383.29808; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:31:22 -0400
Message-ID: <5EDA4946.4080406@isdg.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:31:50 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <DM5PR0601MB367115AD49513EAF3953716CF68B0@DM5PR0601MB3671.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CAJ4XoYcDhiap3fMfCjUbjERDK+DH=Au+43Ycu_YR4dPRQmNKaA@mail.gmail.com> <114ec030-dbc9-bf7d-a453-e5cf3dd3f642@bluepopcorn.net> <CAJ4XoYdt-8D65ajLLDGoNBqUB7+juWvWSdaO+PJPZpBbE6eeZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYdt-8D65ajLLDGoNBqUB7+juWvWSdaO+PJPZpBbE6eeZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0ArIl8BJNI5Gzp3AUh5whCaZ0e4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:31:59 -0000
On 6/5/2020 1:39 AM, Dotzero wrote: > > The goal of DMARC was (and is) to mitigate direct domain abuse. +1, it was the goal of: [1] The original proof of concept with DomainKeys' built-in o= policy tag for 1st party support, and [2] The original DKIM draft augmented with the original SSP draft with extended o= tags that included 3rd party signer considerations, and [3] My own DSAP with its full coverage of 1st party and 3rd party signer policies, and [4] SSP/ASP when policy was separated from DKIM to create DKIM-BASE. SSP/ASP was replaced with, [5] ADSP which was limited to 1st party and ambiguous 3rd party signer support which was replaced with, [6] DMARC with its limited 1st party only support, punting on addressing the 3rd party signer issue. Short of reporting and SPF integration, DMARC did not bring any more to the DKIM Policy design picture. All of the DKIM Policy proposals offered the same power for highly detectable, enforcible direct mail, exclusive and restrictive 1st policies. From day one, a few of the key cogs here stated for the most part, "No will ever use an exclusive DKIM policy, and if so, it will be an extremely narrow case with small guys, and we don't about them" was the prevailing attitude about DKIM Policy protocols. Thanks to a non-IETF Trade Group who filled in the abandoned IETF DKIM Policy ADSP model with "Super ADSP" aka DMARC, that all changed with domains, of all sizes, switching to restrictive, rejectable DMARC policy and the verifiers where beginning to honor it. It brought the DKIM Policy theory into practice along with the unhandled indirect 3rd party resigner list problem. > Nothing more and nothing less. +1 for the most part. -- HLS
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Brandon Long
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Stan Kalisch