IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 CE7163A07F0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 j9CEC1zofYf9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 76CC83A07EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id n25so11567916pgb.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=n3nCZqlDWXUPzlr9o6uU4zC4xNwo4rMTfhbMw0O6ZuI=; b=nkb44L1mvSzgJ5M3KZ21VQJia7TZRW18/8D1ydkizpdjzK9B6t9TublmLHdJcs/Fd4 zdGXPURD9rrbboRQq/S+sxJ408COyXCJaNjPMoyYpMN/9jPBL+JkAZqGKdo+jNQXWthO xpZRgBD8PFDE4J8FwFNmG2tyTGQb3pvP8p3Lh/8QxKHLVv5UFeSw+AXJHFXuPgOGQQBM ZYQ1qn0YTaBSfvlj4MCNpbTKssUc7UMwjZeI4gMtkTIMaCjK1mWekyupIwQSXUM0k3cz d3ZuW0sWcMQ17KwPRGFUReDkZ1FzF1WKwVxJmE7qvAPc3quShPm+FPxwGq3lDzq1xiZk CXsQ==
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-language; bh=n3nCZqlDWXUPzlr9o6uU4zC4xNwo4rMTfhbMw0O6ZuI=; b=DmIPp7WDQpsDB2UEp7ZCKrneUplSqo3XTVpR26QctLrnIhZ4dMH0LB3zvVCDU8vMPr s2wFAGd5RVc8KANlY3BCDl+di3wBxun0aP15mrbTSDY0QlcEcapYGazsDQG6m7OquRdR tUEGCilzR3UElcjtwbtzTLpvJsDXYIo7+YSZUfBNKWbTW2Ju0+/Y4aMl9QCy+GLabq/d oJiseEgIUwwTzisVYEezAnmTO4qgF05czESSU5Avxlya+SVBYGvp5tLJimRhWbC9/lm+ /VQniQwrBXQaElpwIgfg0wxmmrcW8WXdkgFwnuo3D+pjaSe0lqSkvWG3tJrAzPUiVEQ+ MrMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LsmKvz6fQl7EQEeUOQ7EgSosNhvhF5xflLcLvbnvHsCwDgIPk hgarYemoZwUtR6L4k6Hg3b+79h78gccugw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpHuYP9+FpG6Bqq6aEsYysOYCJrUZCGm41pD94MguXuCT/d82SAOSG1q1p4wiYmkOLMkgC+g==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:488d:: with SMTP id n13mr16326284pgs.315.1609342899605; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-45-95.volcanocom.com. [107.182.45.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z23sm35345073pfj.143.2020.12.30.07.41.38 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:38 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8m0OWsTt+tcSgUh+Fxu=HH_57nsb2O1Q_fgA2453ceh4g@mail.gmail.com> <140485eb-020f-4406-3f2f-e2c475ea51e5@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mApfoF2ORgL+DoYTanrdhMjvT9H27kORwLKCQc1C9sRw@mail.gmail.com> <5588dbbe-b876-ed80-c80f-792380e3718f@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=kW_t_JkOxUud1Uz8+PrbMh5CfwfxZK=mhe0wjW8wQpw@mail.gmail.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it> <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com> <72e20c17-e991-e82a-9120-a27097e3ac58@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=6huc-N4ymDTOWZXHGjQQ-3RFDdomRzmGp4kOseHckMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <7863d250-f56a-1fe1-44ee-fbc7486d48b4@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:41:37 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=6huc-N4ymDTOWZXHGjQQ-3RFDdomRzmGp4kOseHckMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0F66340D67DA2F0A91108D3F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/88atGey-uRKoGXFa9HCsTuWyShU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:41:42 -0000

On 12/30/20 7:35 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:01 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 12/30/20 5:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
>>
>>         I propose to add two new result name codes, named after the
>>         policy requests:
>>
>>             dmarc=quarantine, and
>>
>>             dmarc=reject (of course, you only see this if the filter
>>         didn't honor the request).
>>
>>
>>     I do not support this, because quarantine, reject, and none are
>>     not Authentication Results, but are instead both policy requests
>>     and disposition decisions.
>>
>     Then we should remove DMARC from auth-res altogether because it is
>     not an authentication mechanism. Either we fully support DMARC in
>     auth-res or remove it. This half-assed state of unlessness serves
>     nobody.
>
>
> I disagree. DMARC has rules that determine whether or not a message is 
> deemed to be authenticated - did it pass SPF or DKIM and did it do so 
> with a domain that aligns with the RFC5322.From domain. The currently 
> valid states for those rules are pass, fail, temperror, and permerror.
>
> Policy and disposition (none, quarantine, reject) apply to decisions 
> made based on the authentication results; they are not states for the 
> authentication checks themselves.
>
DMARC != Auth-res. Auth-res provides all kinds of useful information 
than just pass/fail. For DMARC Auth-res should provide what the policy 
was at a bare minimum. But none of this seems to have any normative 
language anywhere which is a problem unto itself. DMARC in auth-res 
seems to be an orphan.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email