IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 02 April 2024 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 63011C14F6AC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 TpON1hgPc-lF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4AC3C14F6BC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 03:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1712055238; bh=hBQihANAXO47Lu532MTu14BtZnKMqEFK5oh9BqAnjfg=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DK/Ab4z0kohyHPqK/PEVER8hyIXoT1qk3Bsvikp6i6zfndTOUweeB6hN4DFov3aDL FuIKzI6phqlclGWCQlerJtWpDXvAeyUOg5zDH35aLhE0Ktk2GiN7O0msMSc4C9aIgz Nhf6362v82rUHUBJznnk0TuNvnbN/+EcZwsniF6DBKSCnHWN4OH1XohOq2kfp
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0F5.00000000660BE3C6.00006EC3; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:53:58 +0200
Message-ID: <8632e7ec-3bc8-4ad6-aded-7d0350bb8068@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:53:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Emanuel Schorsch <emschorsch@google.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CAHej_8x7jGiMQmuJR8qnp5ET8i_Xqz1p4YSeM6RkeY3YiNfaxg@mail.gmail.com> <20240401230502.531CA86A7CC2@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwZakrXvDQPc851ggDuipbdv9+zApPYESkfYq12QB3_UAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFcYR_WFXZv3z_RPavixYHMRy=kVxYrfUDiUjy18FbgYuXCk3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAFcYR_UZ=fXvsSh6-KnjgmBFgTYX_jNObu_um_1-w+RY2XiiNw@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <CAFcYR_UZ=fXvsSh6-KnjgmBFgTYX_jNObu_um_1-w+RY2XiiNw@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/24bO10IuiYJ2W55XLVYGwF_-Eq0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 10:54:08 -0000

On Tue 02/Apr/2024 10:11:08 +0200 Emanuel Schorsch wrote:
> Just to add some specifics, since August of 2023 we've gone from seeing
> ~100 ARC sealers of meaningful volume to over 300 as of yesterday. It is
> extremely important in our experience to have standard ways of identifying
> indirect flows. ListId headers and ReceivedHeaders are the bare minimum for
> MailingLists today, but those are both easily spoofable and ARC provides a
> much safer approach to standardizing that indirect flow identification
> problem.


It would be desirable to have a means to set up indirect mail flows so as to 
make ARC sealers trusted even when they are low-volume senders.  It would also 
be nice to know, for DMARC-triggered bounces, whether any ARC seal also failed 
to verify rather than not being trusted.  In the latter case, if a procedure 
exists to register ARC sealers, the 5xx response would be a good place to 
advertise it.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email