Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 28 June 2023 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 C6E40C151075 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="ZBxw8ab7"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="CAEBJF8U"
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 HhgH66100qkM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE19BC14CF12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1687970590; bh=Rflv9FZBEKCM1wGgSniVKCJ/CTPeEuBook+zk1pqG3c=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=ZBxw8ab7nQBaY/bvWC1wOESR5G3AEfm2NV/GvBuZ8sT5mBB1bxLK+YveYgrIXnQqW fANLYX61s21GpVMbi19Bg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1687970590; bh=Rflv9FZBEKCM1wGgSniVKCJ/CTPeEuBook+zk1pqG3c=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CAEBJF8UZZN2BLylIB//xCx/B3JbBv3tVlGIQQMjBBRb9ELVz3eYzXLm5diFGjJZI 6gxq23dPn2UTVPXEutKq2kFHRzD3GTIBB6MaNKUeCovUZL28dx5JPNp9QwY3j5pB+Z 8UYfhfRdl2ETGgCtEFHwTrCnWWjg5ecTNSaQ/tI99IWwoqsrZK2tFpsEWyvpa
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0E7.00000000649C631E.00001CB1; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:43:10 +0200
Message-ID: <d3986316-02f9-9d73-be81-37af7cfd40a7@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 18:43:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20230623021810.E5F8DF9B3B94@ary.qy> <6495D504.4090809@isdg.net> <839aa10b-f7fa-c7a2-76db-6441189afca2@dusatko.org> <CALaySJ+gcVvpzJcrpUbOkOvjUFAhzw=pZovpZC7BhW_x7VW7nA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwasxzqJt7Hr7gZd86C=ivCrDUci_i6pkJJUTnqzL1pHMA@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+gjR6D-OSE_07iSH2zXa7wypUQwPN1cL-1s+NC2S4L8g@mail.gmail.com> <99e1ef2d-053b-8cfe-f369-fa8475d142ae@tana.it> <CALaySJKZoAPTT-+cZEww+y2eUsDbNXcybb=Z7RxNLyfzPMr7ng@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKZoAPTT-+cZEww+y2eUsDbNXcybb=Z7RxNLyfzPMr7ng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9DpzYPUKwLB0dMB2DAY0U0UGlk8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:43:25 -0000
Thank you for your analysis. However, it doesn't touch on DKIM replay. I know this topic belongs to the other list. Let me briefly recall it, if this doesn't take too many cycles from core matters: It occurs when a signed message is replayed by unauthorized hosts to recipients which were not originally addressed. So, it is one case of your 3rd proposition: In some scenarios, DKIM will pass when SPF fails. You say that it is technically unnecessary to test both because DKIM should always pass when SPF passes (1st proposition). You claim: > But where the harm comes is in cases of mis-configuration, because now if > *either* of them is misconfigured, the whole thing fails -- neither of them > serves as a backup for the other; instead, the misconfiguration of either > one causes deliverability problems. I agree. But what if SPF and DKIM are both configured properly? You seem to imply that auth=dkim+spf wouldn't be effective against DKIM reply, but your analysis doesn't cover that case explicitly. Perhaps there are better ways to counter that specific problem, and certainly it's not what this WG is tasked to do. But, just to make the point, I think it's interesting to know. Best Ale On Tue 27/Jun/2023 16:24:21 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > I don't understand how most of your message fits into this discussion: > you're comparing SPF's policy points with DMARC policy. we're talking > about SPF as an authentication mechanism together with DKIM (not > DMARC) as an authentication mechanism... and then using those > authentication results in DMARC policy evaluation. > > But here: I've said all this before in separate places, so I'll put it > in one place, here, one more time: > > Given that SPF and DKIM are both configured properly: > 1. If SPF passes, DKIM will always pass. > 2. If DKIM fails, SPF will always fail. > 3. In some scenarios, DKIM will pass when SPF fails. > > Therefore, when everything is configured properly, SPF adds no value > beyond what DKIM does, and DKIM does add value beyond what SPF does. > That's why I am (and others are) arguing that we should remove SPF > *from DMARC evaluation*. There's no argument that for now, or some, > SPF outside of DMARC still has value. > > What others are arguing is that in the real world, things do get > mis-configured, and if DKIM is misconfigured and fails when it > shouldn't, SPF adds value by providing a working authentication. > (And, of course, similarly the other way around, plus DKIM covers some > cases when messages are relayed or forwarded.) That speaks for "SPF > *or* DKIM". > > But "SPF *and* DKIM" -- requiring *both* to pass -- is technically > unnecessary at best, because of (1) above: DKIM should always pass > when SPF passes. But where the harm comes is in cases of > mis-configuration, because now if *either* of them is misconfigured, > the whole thing fails -- neither of them serves as a backup for the > other; instead, the misconfiguration of either one causes > deliverability problems. DMARC is damaged by requiring an > authentication situation that is unnecessary when things are properly > configured, and that is more fragile than what we've been using, more > susceptible to configuration errors than we've seen before. > > And I'm afraid that people will use it preferentially, *thinking* that > it provides better "security" -- surely, double authentication is > better than single, no? > > No. > > Barry > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:36 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: >> >> On Mon 26/Jun/2023 20:13:53 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: >>> I'm saying I don't want "and" to be an option, because I think it's >>> damaging to DMARC. There is no reason anyone should ever want to say >>> that, and providing the option asks for misconfigurations because >>> people think it's somehow "more secure". It's not more secure. It >>> would be very bad for deliverability of legitimate mail and would >>> provide no additional security. It would be a terrible mistake. >> >> >> I've been sporting spf-all for years, and seldom experienced bounces, mostly >> due to misconfigured secondary MXes. Out of 39 domains whose posts to this >> list in the past year are still in my inbox, 14 have spf-all. So, while I'm >> not the only one, not many published -all even though it may seem to be somehow >> more secure. >> >> I think it can be worth to compare SPF and DMARC. Another sender policy a >> decade and an authentication method after. What adoption, what hype. >> >> Both policies ask receivers to reject a domain identifier in some cases. RFC >> 7208 explicitly suggests to consider whitelisting (Appendix D). DMARC provides >> for overrides but is less clear about how to handle exceptions. After SPF >> broke forwarding, the reaction was split between some changing identifier and >> turning to ~all; after DMARC broke mailing lists, between changing identifier >> and not altering messages. In my limited experience, the ratio seems to be >> higher for DMARC than SPF, but I may be wrong. >> >> In theory, domains that currently have a strict DMARC policy and spf-all, 6 of >> the above, should have their messages blocked when either method fails, up to >> changing identifiers. Why would it be so bad for deliverability to >> additionally require DMARC alignment, which is the difference between that and >> the "and"? >> >> And, it seems to me that an ESP not having a bloated SPF record could stop a >> good deal of DKIM replay by resorting to auth=dkim+spf. Besides collateral >> deliverability problems, why wouldn't that work? >> >> Wht would "and" damage DMARC more than -all damaged SPF? >> >> I hope we can discuss detailed criticism rather than vague ostracism. >> >> >> Best >> Ale >> -- >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in the tree walk, was ver… Alessandro Vesely
- [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF Depen… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Michael Kliewe
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Patrick Ben Koetter
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal David Verdin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Florian.Kunkel
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Neil Anuskiewicz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… OLIVIER HUREAU
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander