IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 21 August 2018 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 87025130E48 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5jqtvAIABYCF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:18:47 -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 A3E00130E1F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 70121 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2018 02:18:44 -0000
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 21 Aug 2018 02:18:44 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1DE842003B88CA; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 22:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 22:18:43 -0400
Message-Id: <20180821021844.1DE842003B88CA@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: kboth@drkurt.com
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qZY2PtLJG+A-1aHDKiKY_1VHRPZ5aNJ1ans4pHnczrzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/DGnmNwOCY1R9VDAt-iHeOnRr1cI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 02:18:50 -0000

In article <CABuGu1qZY2PtLJG+A-1aHDKiKY_1VHRPZ5aNJ1ans4pHnczrzQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>My contention to Seth is that in a multi-hop scenario, the *only* report
>with meaningful data will be the one from the handler who made the "fail"
>determination and any subsequent reports are untrustworthy.

Assuming that "subsequent" means earlier in the chain, I agree.

>Do the other folks on this thread agree that our main point of contention
>has to do with the ability to generate the DMARC report (or the data
>scoping thereof)?

Yes.  I understand what to do with "here's a valid chain" and "it was
broken when I got it", but not "here's a broken chain you may or may
not be able to reconstruct."

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email