IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Thu, 20 April 2023 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 6EF53C1524AC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2MO-mubRdY_0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x930.google.com (mail-ua1-x930.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]) (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 15529C1522DA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x930.google.com with SMTP id az21so2461344uab.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1682007500; x=1684599500; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dtmhuddVCQ7GF/lrdjf0hBO6UBojPAOS0qqT5ryxCQE=; b=QfvRrKkEaI5ETYYVFwYS8VnU0CHYGXliDz/O/HXd96lV7C++sMPWA+qwKuYj4kNvSr t16pq9qonf0mDWc0KNLJpsnEXyDEafIK0qNEYF1PYBOPIB4fpCRJXbvyaHKvOBdzF+DA +fxOfv625bhvLZpCerxzdfVlbbHwMuSG+nXbn4b9znFFZmzTbAA8hg7NYkVIQW3y54NB 2EmqTvhOud8VAuudP1JbDpMTxXftEj7j3Nuii2LYoB13vS/7p4AeLT3xCAFcIbILm+xX uSD6c7L+zerAyMLBUYsZKgCmINgY/WVrh7Msf0F7YjljdEOATsCiJqzshVYt1eHiJ80M GXgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682007500; x=1684599500; 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=dtmhuddVCQ7GF/lrdjf0hBO6UBojPAOS0qqT5ryxCQE=; b=I4xg2iLlxupe/X2KJnqcZiXPTJ8j4usnSst32YuWWt19eZ98b33g1Lugcn9x+rGwPU 8A0wNBgO/jBws6blqof73K0MOMK/zDkEgxJwAgB/HiLSOV4jONRNTee353CQkFnhcC32 X1UWq4u5k2EqCIQIv1kr5Y+JaED/89veXGQbApsZsUvYw/mPxh+ge3DEdw5Fdh7XeKub qfOm5EBlNeMCpgAw7JGc+NxjL47Mv74EGp3ClinTtONCuCqTbDILww6szZhLy7KQdB7V rNUSfaSGTPVkj8Xuv15Iwz10hsT3lZTKAakNXBGUysf+T53oFdkut+j96tPDLTF8fQ8C yLbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9frHk8/jTrSzNQRfMknCaY1S6PKU3w4PmKGtV3+rkGmT0rhuf7d h6yDicdhiLkIjMErFdefnnxE0bEZK6+zrejHwl7vqmdI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bJKmt9HNNXHHZ7SRl50Q7Eikv1Le5eyfy0sm+Iih6Skp2DCC+JOBSBaEqXI8hnbTbZDSicTahF9veWyUKqDMc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:902:b0:446:adde:f761 with SMTP id j2-20020a056122090200b00446addef761mr2687107vka.7.1682007499403; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0abf9711-ca1c-bfcf-afb2-15e16b9de149@tana.it> <20230420153727.DB568C106CE9@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20230420153727.DB568C106CE9@ary.qy>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:18:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYeyoOYeXW1QN+yeMbxt4SF7Kn2Xi=FP7VmX4MhKiDi9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, vesely@tana.it
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000082f58405f9c6e3bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6zcma6Sp9XWD6Yqfn9hYP2rHPpo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?
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, 20 Apr 2023 16:18:22 -0000

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
> >IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better
> you
> >have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase,
> expanding a
> >bit the first bullet in Section 11.4.  That can also be a good place to
> explain
> >the kind of damage DMARC causes.
>
> Absolutely not. This sort of thing is utterly outside the scope of our
> job and wasting time on it just further delays our already extremely
> late work.
>
> R's,
> John
>

+1

There are many things John and I may disagree on but he clearly understands
why avoiding scope creep (and bad ideas) is important.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email