IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Sebastiaan de Vos <sebastiaan@inboxsys.com> Fri, 16 June 2023 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sebastiaan@inboxsys.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 76B88C151988 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 02:52:00 -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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inboxsys.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 f_lHkwe3rGfd for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 02:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta1.inboxsys.net (mta1.inboxsys.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c010:993a::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 7019DC14F75F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 02:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.inboxsys.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2928A3F633 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:51:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inboxsys.com; s=deliv202301; t=1686909109; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OqxKkaP7m1LMvWi+laiSH3IpSOWfAgInmliJscwMaRw=; b=WvVra2AQjWZvTo/3QvR/HaBVUvz4+VPTz+P4AmZXpckhfXB7eg4XbN16AHM2/ak0jOu4M4 DQWR6vVmK5S6MKIHxxBt7L6Y2EUh5hTUYz8C6ciYpnb8sgqiMzHVwUHMwNhw5vTIsljW57 dYkA9fIOZmBOi/tYTcn97leCoaIBu3vYKjaJ5fUcHrArDipHCdSirXTCg4lKvSFhnS5Dkz PwBzMok5XVyfULseoBEN2CDrd2CnNnVAKMiogUw/3MV/oB0J3F/bddjrXxaU+sfQb4aDOC Cpmz3V9uUsUvE5qK4QFpr/OsJ9KxZr42WLVih7wV9CSCZzCNrQjGQ92XH3ckHQ==
Authentication-Results: mta1.inboxsys.net; auth=pass smtp.mailfrom=sebastiaan@inboxsys.com
Message-ID: <7d39aa8e-dacc-05fa-eff1-2cc350d521db@inboxsys.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:51:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi> <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it> <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi> <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi> <5d9a0b0f-8777-2494-d779-376c6ab8b37d@tana.it>
From: Sebastiaan de Vos <sebastiaan@inboxsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d9a0b0f-8777-2494-d779-376c6ab8b37d@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/D0L_Nu4E6vSTqyzenL8fosX6ii0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 09:52:00 -0000

> Many thanks.  That figure seems to be more or less in agreement with 
> what others here have obtained on smaller samples.  However small, it 
> may confer to SPF the role of a stabilizer in DMARC mail flows. 

How could SPF be a stabilizer when it's proven to be a highly unreliable 
mechanism? I'd rather consider that a de-stabiliser. From what I 
understand, SPF is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Sebastiaan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email