IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 07 April 2024 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 5366EC14F6AD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="J7xgTjH9"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="lexT/L8T"
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 55XB7INi1OF0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 9B1C5C14F6AC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 43361 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2024 16:27:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=a94f6612c986.k2404; bh=poeo0gl+BGzb9oYdaKRfGVB+YtlOIZzjTDwJjh1BjdY=; b=J7xgTjH9aCVrgwKZzXYiT1vWppJC8Z9bbUadmm8cNI5lSYHbeBvH2t7fu60zpxrb+4f9dTzUmfaelNzXaOwCj+oqTjFQ7rHNo7YRLNl+WH2kFZ0jNZ3u5BkZqyPmiMehMA1+8xNYKszWGhBkdTV9fe+u7OpMmzphrNdLNUE7e+cO5GyLCvVjOzhn/Dhzkti87pGzdrQCJ7bZjes+Opm8lw3Q2Fx7+nAljXdKkQY2moi0u1vzozNHVWi9viOvIoC2KjZNqNZCSleB7S4Ye+5FO6T/JGTAIdVldXmWBIAEicRvOWroUNVnaZQao4kPDuDWN60n5UTjZdESkR9y8pPqHQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=a94f6612c986.k2404; bh=poeo0gl+BGzb9oYdaKRfGVB+YtlOIZzjTDwJjh1BjdY=; b=lexT/L8TveTgBIFWyyfX1CN6g/TY0LmrbctmrnZhjnJKo03hXJmCpFCrfmhq3nBwjiIg+OwTn1sX11jijXQDPnzXiV4hWt+uGCinMeTK1yG6sPj3UuLr8Vodo55nVf9QoapvP+BYz6l6761vTtUihUkyihOhh9uv2Olgm+8b5qGmoqNkbWkuBu4vfjOHIpiVB0lqOZu9lonLExLGGpnPt8XoMsN1br46hnEfKqs5G/9iHoG5vsdjsbz/TZMZu7ioqjiVf194ZXbs2K+wUuRs9PScTEtwZDEjjwCTr8M5Nx2NL0aR1qjhKaiiOzwG1EIAqIru4qoQi2yjRcFMLnRK1A==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 07 Apr 2024 16:27:49 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2491187453FA; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35F187453DC; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 12:27:48 -0400
Message-ID: <afe488dd-bcb1-30e6-161c-45c90d885725@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Neil Anuskiewicz <neil@marmot-tech.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <400178F2-B40F-4555-BD51-628A11EF1417@marmot-tech.com>
References: <20240406204004.348F78701D5A@ary.qy> <400178F2-B40F-4555-BD51-628A11EF1417@marmot-tech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6dtHAQvgXqRjKJAJXJfNzO8dOiQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all
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: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 16:27:58 -0000

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
> I think clear statement and supporting text explaining clearly that SPF is no longer the policy layer would be a good idea. While it might be slightly out of scope, I have encountered people who think best practice is to enforce with -ALL.

We had a long discussion about that which you can read in the list archive 
at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/

Nobody is crazy about SPF but removing it completely is too much of a 
change. As Ale pointed out, if you don't want people to use SPF for your 
DMARC validation, make all your SPF entries ? or ~ rather than +.

This WG should have finished a year ago.  Unless you think something is so 
broken that it's worth more months of delay, forget it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email