IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy

Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.alley@tekmarc.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 E01BEC14F749 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=tekmarc.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 8BMYgNeJO8qZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1131.google.com (mail-yw1-x1131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1131]) (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 6E163C14F70E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1131.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-609ed7ca444so16110707b3.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tekmarc.com; s=google; t=1711066864; x=1711671664; darn=ietf.org; h=in-reply-to:from:references:to:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ULI0ZOJToE/7t4AieIwKqEOf4dz1xWC0M8nvuVct3Mw=; b=edGpdOYYahnlx+W73aXt0Yo39OmhtafcpAvr/pTF9hlYmkiO3zEgrQcqC3/o8YOIOZ WW3dEWLufWi8zzAatMndzFmf5m1tENy0q/zcx3EaQ0r8ad5KMG88vZwNJ3O85tchcgUI LiXwOL+AW/405KMjetVvHAKQ/uES0pGC48CjUgK0S0mwxp64UdPVK+YakvCCdenCbjMP 5gzJokdh+9PT4riLIlaOBcUm0Awjoy5LUskv6ZiYf5Xz61TeRxs4xxdxEgHZ0zn/17l/ eqziEyEeewsVwQZLovmyPHE8l8QFNxipiGo9KsR9vi6Zq8LPt6HATIMXNque22c5gphs yKAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711066864; x=1711671664; h=in-reply-to:from:references:to:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ULI0ZOJToE/7t4AieIwKqEOf4dz1xWC0M8nvuVct3Mw=; b=VZ6t9rLUA/h00zin6pHvzVhOxGSDE0pohVRwyQwMiaaijwR7tGLB+IWIUhl3/oBVBy IO8dzqmWHdAiQ0gz34EhRMHpcdWS3YOKjfpyUx8x2Hd+pjg6qqVQwjYOEgabLn3rbZJn qeAkB9LzBFpPQlU+HyfF8Sqv0YzNCgSSgGOKL93W2+Scb55E5C91l0x3kd+NMVthM+BZ 90T6VmNCYUJHMnwA4gmSNzWJoTo3Jw8JGSBRsfwXVKOJmWAi/1wo5nRuJvYoeTf+NsoX c+uQnrPT/LyLDddPgN4e6//svLdahk8tWfoflAMAxRQpolsChPT1D7iToEDBnZv++wpa BSZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YweqC6Nrb7dLwzq9uC/mchBNTlB3m35ZYEBxUxHDbE5y9UwCsWJ VKpgsHH0j43m1vSC8zeSB/RkjhjdsUv5noVusOcQRIoj9kkqj6sx+2k14X9u7IIXMXaPZQ2uVMO q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFJl0jyQPeQVzliGm3deJQI5Oz955+F5B9RcmWpWSsNbslStgC/QJeZZlr0VmqhrpIOeEQUNg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:de05:0:b0:60a:4d2:3f6d with SMTP id h5-20020a0dde05000000b0060a04d23f6dmr790474ywe.47.1711066863826; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.20] (162-238-103-217.lightspeed.brhmal.sbcglobal.net. [162.238.103.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r29-20020a81441d000000b0060cb819562esm168062ywa.68.2024.03.21.17.21.02 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------nxA8hzVUlRPQdI0chhbx6SbV"
Message-ID: <cdec1c75-237f-41d8-bdbb-0b4477f6cebf@tekmarc.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:21:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <27cf610e-8666-410c-b015-6c33478af9b4@tana.it> <d959df28-efae-41df-a760-95adf48f5d91@wander.science> <8acac3b8-4529-4c21-b7a4-462564199db4@tana.it> <CAHej_8m6MFQ9m5U+=iHeL9MiXno3LF80=rsbKv0c99_24yo2Qw@mail.gmail.com> <8376D937-E7A9-4C0D-86F9-DB4FD2C117E6@kitterman.com> <CAL0qLwber-s8nNDEz_TAJijh0Py-ch9G4jb9gbguEQCc17xANA@mail.gmail.com> <497E0C77-354E-445A-9758-F6BC6058B980@kitterman.com>
From: Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>
In-Reply-To: <497E0C77-354E-445A-9758-F6BC6058B980@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/CTxnw_fLo5ES3kpsgfB20AeNIIE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:21:10 -0000

On 3/21/2024 7:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>
> On March 21, 2024 11:39:35 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"<superuser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:59 AM Scott Kitterman<sklist@kitterman.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> For t=y, DKIM says:
>>>>>
>>>>>         y  This domain is testing DKIM.  Verifiers MUST NOT treat
>>> messages
>>>>>            from Signers in testing mode differently from unsigned email,
>>>>>            even should the signature fail to verify.  Verifiers MAY wish
>>>>>            to track testing mode results to assist the Signer.
>>>>>
>>>>> So reporting dkim=pass for testing keys seems to be a violation.
>> DMARC being told "pass" by a DKIM engine for a testing key is a problem in
>> the DKIM engine.
>>
> I agree.
>
> I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I can see people thinking there's some correlation between DKIM testing and DMARC testing.  It's not completely illogical, so it might be better to be explicit.
> Scott K

Agreed as well. It's worth calling out, IMO.


- Mark Alley

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email