IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 16 May 2020 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 7CC063A07E1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=NTmg63PU; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=N5eyKOC7
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 P2_Ymmwp59ax for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 F1A2D3A07E0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 38067 invoked by uid 100); 16 May 2020 01:09:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:09:15 -0000
Message-ID: <r9nefr$12k0$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=94a8.5ebf3d3c.k2005; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=lF56xv3Km5FKLT+onq5V4hoKHPWqhTEq3AHeQbwbWUk=; b=NTmg63PUyt9p0HkHmJBVdiD1ZDDGmLDgaFlk/RjV3MJPQ84SvfstGA/u6nM3EZ+nHBDqgxfTsKP4vwKKxWwjZX6JpqTgZCw/v36avg5zuuL/V3k5hud02F/kxdu0/IffiQy30pUJqshMtaM9QI9sDB6RMlAnZ0pK+tz+VrB4Vimxsa5i4ElR5T63fSgsf0xaARCRbA8x3C9QdEWWbwpfsoIsLTzlqDynUrTOlEoGs2IwkwUdxFWkBhI0Ya+FCK0n
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=94a8.5ebf3d3c.k2005; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=lF56xv3Km5FKLT+onq5V4hoKHPWqhTEq3AHeQbwbWUk=; b=N5eyKOC7uyoKsUB2MVgIcbL8wjAa0iE6tyqpWFi1jUU9cecRnztVEO6nxmMjbp9pJZ9ysY6hn17Qwv/DpGHbW2PTil8fVJ+irNFiEBTX0FlIOfariT/q/epBNIeIhHKAjhLWchu8YF2kj/VqPibe4WZAfsUHsMRJdJSrnzTBRu51sQTTDPf1uajA08a3fb9SCp4dxK7Qu3K3xjbecdlaUUpRjbYHoQEK7cq0aY8JKYph1a6wuTlPVQ2izoHBxoNe
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <CAOZAAfP9AiYi2Gpyd2gfhbN5tUmTA5oH4_bOGq_HY4JnqYT+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa-iuyB_iNQU+g6e3NH1+q0W413RaCZcHp==s9CQA7s1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfP9AiYi2Gpyd2gfhbN5tUmTA5oH4_bOGq_HY4JnqYT+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa-iuyB_iNQU+g6e3NH1+q0W413RaCZcHp==s9CQA7s1g@mail.gmail.com>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1Oho13IJ0IF5bA4Wm5yur9urrFw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:09:22 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwa-iuyB_iNQU+g6e3NH1+q0W413RaCZcHp==s9CQA7s1g@mail.gmail.com>,
Murray S. Kucherawy  <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's been a while since the original discussion, but I can't remember why
>the requirement is there in the first place.  The only benefit I can think
>of is that having "v=" first lets you decide very quickly if you care to
>continue, but the savings is really pretty small.

The v=DMARC1; is a magic number that tells you whether it's worth decoding the
rest of the record.  People put a lot of junk at tops of their zones, some
of which is in k=v format and I would prefer not to try to decode records full
of junk to see of a v= tag is in there somewhere.

Other than that I agree there is no reason to specify the order of
tags.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email