IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Sat, 06 June 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 A22CC3A0D13 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4VVpf6-bAYL for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x743.google.com (mail-qk1-x743.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::743]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43E03A0D23 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x743.google.com with SMTP id v79so13513968qkb.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=YrjdnqQhjwUQo9aVeziV/Kf2TN1n1jTJG3n//tCMqSU=; b=l6azAwPZpTkg1DyvV711PRpQrX9iId9QX8oynjpqa2N4F8tHIu2d4XGplTeOXFro4J hENDXOJLmRzZLCscPLw9dTrXM0GwYf9C2tdAAXtDOH7Sq3CBrI4+WAuh+gjmY6SU+v7q q47xn0izb65A1Pd4887PQr9Apgq29Ag8nElXqyb7zzI5dWPXlEJV+iBDMC56b5Ir5y1B EwJ4nHHCpQF23YjHWPBzyGq/KG468WBbz960xVV7/Zv8cV29r25g8HIYYLXwFg6ejc/C 60h3Nxpu/L9VG43INmcdzFWKtSNhDz2GLjRIA16kSFe18Rcm7e1FMp+CsIQOZfQaysst mMnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=YrjdnqQhjwUQo9aVeziV/Kf2TN1n1jTJG3n//tCMqSU=; b=qxyLjLLxBiCqloKsdRw/zW426CVswAz+gjv0QfTJ7hrzAeqxeYy5VVZFWaA3i2JZ7U jYt6xeaun3Yr7Rs/Xo+6djcLEIKKw2knV+2G8SiaPo89R7FsiZaNtGAxvwjQnL1wBQOA qmFstuJ1GvIywYA9tGYi04pIcI0MGLchKGCrT5IcOpfs4UU4ss6Jklv+XnlkN6Rznh3i BJS6/90e5ZWKrHdX5v4AzB7DenJ6zGKZYAdOfCyfLc+8Dp5AZfw2uI3aYqDCybSWdEPG v7l3jZCQlY+8Aap+kpx867ntB991RHF/OxrS0uNHwC1gKaYAz5JCAReUchir4LXIDAku T/Fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sS4PnkDqo09TQQMNuQsnbDWlOi+bzyVcK6SJnhxmMT4Y4N4fp oxIKkTJ+PVG9w6Bpmc+4kBKPkBPI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxI9nn4yHSlOeldNphGv3KqdHKCpn5jid8AwUDzKeJcnYki+hQ2r9d+T5eR37ILn3GyllAIhg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4fa:: with SMTP id b26mr16187564qkh.63.1591478771624; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:348c:a0a2:a094:ddee? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:348c:a0a2:a094:ddee]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y185sm3188308qkd.83.2020.06.06.14.26.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <DM5PR0601MB367115AD49513EAF3953716CF68B0@DM5PR0601MB3671.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <F312F1CC-4CCC-4510-83E3-4010AECF7916@kitterman.com> <rbgv8n$2c3k$1@gal.iecc.com> <11640715.3lbasgNmsr@sk-desktop>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25420528-d356-0273-ceb3-c44a3c94bc91@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:26:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11640715.3lbasgNmsr@sk-desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/43X83oxAQTmyAIkiannkA756NHA>
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:26:18 -0000

On 6/6/2020 2:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If things like DMARC, SPF, and DKIM do nothing more than get abusers to use
> different domains than they would otherwise, I think that's a win.

The issue here is DMARC, not SPF or DKIM, since DMARC is the only one of 
the 3 that restricts the choice of domain name.

With that in mind, I'll ask you why you think the kind of change you 
cite is a win.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email