IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 27 March 2021 22:00 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 3EA7A3A1626 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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=iecc.com header.b=KLAZpGJN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=HVUMLR0u
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 EcrmDHspqhEX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:00:25 -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 0C2263A1620 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18519 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2021 22:00:20 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=4853.605faaf4.k2103; bh=u8dTw8HcMI15BuZJgH51RGpwXX6gP7SsshiAyUjd3rM=; b=KLAZpGJNCELpyabOOdvt4rSsVTWLMr8YWhxD+AV1fTusvlUXg0HhA3kOL3T+jtv9tFWxwdgAnXg4O6U+2UyPZc5uvRIkcx6yTE6vLtJllNjij1xvwNPAMJRIucOfusq8mYsmX0XWRtHE0+VP5uz/M9/oyHD6ywzjI63q813mRdc1KmVW+mBnfef6W1HUz/QVmP7kC9EB1H7m9UfvM7rqCzaYWuquyemFYS7OohyRkx/YGjcluhOksQhXalWGY3j5CuOcL7eDNNqiISLVWKiFyrfzPsgyIpLtJBL0dmh7CWvL0qUYG3H99B1sz/3bAaAzQvhkULB2tIvRkQZSnstOWw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=4853.605faaf4.k2103; bh=u8dTw8HcMI15BuZJgH51RGpwXX6gP7SsshiAyUjd3rM=; b=HVUMLR0u3loTBM/AgJN6BgBR3Sr+uZUGkiSlzDZVJEdvnxt1Nrt+VZszcOaOfEIwNt6pyi0yufMTr6nS7UfhS1Gc32D689kW0+oBNfmGxXLO6dLHqZVOZxxAhueMfX7wUaa5PIj4FQliq6v3z3RxFwQaUulu6aJ+xo6hi82lNsdKVRuHB6J6W/CYdAWsdvSgzqnSuKGzh0NXU+qNOg/iGCKSl1EorL+cMS9rcekKsXlEP1K6XviqGMgO66iEoEbMaYBxSEW006WeYWZRGROj/jfLDO0lIrJyxaJ/TCCGrz/+HWJ+CrufHh5xRnoKpMXPeatbTU0NCbCwKMOedfPVdg==
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 (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 27 Mar 2021 22:00:19 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 49E2471610D6; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 18:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDDB71610B8; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 18:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 18:00:18 -0400
Message-ID: <21837ac8-c225-891f-22fd-2ad69830fa1f@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <EFC1DADA-C5F5-4B18-9463-878A670A6164@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <F1E2D8D7-9978-4C4B-9FD7-AB6428D12789@contoso.com> <20210324202058.91E777134D1B@ary.qy> <CABuGu1ovwwwwZALDOed74nBu1gOHcom8W+UDKC2GdWiEE_7yKw@mail.gmail.com> <4677E791-B028-4CAC-9752-0F4D8F1B0103@mimecast.com> <2ea2767-4940-77d1-e09e-a0ab215f9c9e@taugh.com> <EFC1DADA-C5F5-4B18-9463-878A670A6164@bluepopcorn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/83sna2xxfUe9Iw9DG149zehz2V8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
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, 27 Mar 2021 22:00:32 -0000

On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, Jim Fenton wrote:
>> It sounds like they're asking DMARC to do things it doesn't do. If you
>> can't ensure that everything sent with your domain on the From line is
>> signed with your signature, you shouldn't publish a DMARC policy.
>
> Agreed, but in some cases, such as US Government agencies, the publication of 
> a p=reject policy is required:
>
> https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/18-01/
>
> Unfortunate IMO that they created this requirement based on an informational RFC.

The government agencies have a different problem -- they do it on the 
cheap with SPF only, so mail falls on the floor if it's forwarded.  I 
handle the mail for my local town government, most of which is forwarded 
to their gmail accounts, and they were losing a lot of important mail from 
the US Census.

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