IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com> Thu, 22 June 2023 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ksimpson@mailchannels.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 D0C93C151073 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:38:20 -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 (1024-bit key) header.d=mailchannels.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 g8KMu7fkMTNW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 0233DC151079 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-4f8792d2e86so5887236e87.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.com; s=google; t=1687469894; x=1690061894; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Kr4MBMuBa0vgvY5SaKuT0zNM7ENQEEPqxAjdYCegHjo=; b=Y5R5j+A2+EOCGdQzSbBa+wD+4pJuONTwqlsok1xKBmqMAiYUHY9FrymeUUeUTBxmHO NIpZ+If3EJkQioCRAamLn8PRrSRZ8U7VrofSxb9ayuvmu+lrCaeMBQsibZvLRUhr3LnQ IJAuvX+MPCkXYZFaxxXDGSPe/SRYMusI2kmvE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687469894; x=1690061894; 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=Kr4MBMuBa0vgvY5SaKuT0zNM7ENQEEPqxAjdYCegHjo=; b=M/3QdCoJi9btVARF8/y7BKxp9NlXDmSms8cDc/rKjuqbp+bMh6j8NQf9kIzUHQZRZW fecaUHln0TEZNQC8gg2fautigM1WX3ite6qpgttz13VwEe6orJLkGX9RULeZCMFp/gwX t68vi6tmVqKKJYsyd6/5C/fS4Ot2kAH5xGyUr8pT4QGTU+CUfvHJBF3Gqo9WbBZ5QGbQ JHTmOPlgDNvo5B9ySPYDoG6d2Dg3Oq8oe1lrNkkYcHSJqwDX0+mA/MpDCapQvIbulvsd lElncvFWUPJPnF0QLfJDs6d17LRokSInPxFZ9usg8HTb0s8FFxyPV2V0VaBKaoCZxXbW tuBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxrY5Cs8BgngyKXOrD4MWABvgH5cdJw8Lh+zm/kUXmCEHykp598 gAFnh7tqKimlDC/kaWgmG41DUnY5uLQYtNcMpUQLnQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7j7DgjRjka1nC/+otKX5Yq5Xwx7R0O9et5fwfSEm2QN5D+BkGPcFEKZUtaoEa/6kyt6D7JFlIya9RJwmorzxU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:23a6:b0:4f9:641a:56b8 with SMTP id c38-20020a05651223a600b004f9641a56b8mr2893773lfv.65.1687469894049; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:38:14 -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> <2080c6e5-2b57-be82-995b-a0986c3a45c5@inboxsys.com> <CAHej_8=7M=zJB2ENbnEQfRMfwEXDnGo61jHE_qQPTc0V9tFMdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwauT-Fq-c5ubf43S7O8Likp+Pjj8SoE2uDNisAZMWfLkA@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJ7_v6k63mcPOn7HnqXSnkFZhuK70M-LtpVvSYzzObtKQ@mail.gmail.com> <7F25BC09-3F26-49AC-9506-5451CEA2264F@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <7F25BC09-3F26-49AC-9506-5451CEA2264F@isdg.net>
From: Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:37:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEYhs4Eoa0i=Bgc7mkydVQPopU8Cutwm2=hu4kmvcznrG2_ZpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos=40isdg.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009abc1e05febeb36e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0ShCuBl2ue8ME98tjXthEnVWbfs>
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 21:38:20 -0000

>
>
> Barry, this is obviously a new relaxation option.  From a mail system
> integration standpoint, the options are:
>
> 1) A version bump to DMARC2 with new semantics with backward DMARC1
> compatibility, or
>
> 2) Use a DMARC1 Extended tag option allowed by DMARC1.   Alessandro cited
> an excellent backward compatible extended tag option:
>
> auth=dkim|spf (default value), auth=dkim+spf, auth=dkim, auth=spf
>
>
>

FWIW, I support the concept above, which would be compatible with DMARC
today. Would anyone from a large receiver like to comment?

Regards,
Ken

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email