IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 01 April 2013 23:02 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 0D5A621E80FD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B++ma4OrLgKE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF6B21E80FB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 84638 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2013 23:02:37 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Apr 2013 23:02:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=515a120c.xn--yuvv84g.k1304; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=bu79e4OU72qRCbSpF/JjL29rmVTleDoW42RyugpWl9o=; b=BM9QNuZRUY4018mypG0Z91MPD1hc+MjcDDeAngkAFusU7cI9qoASJX8yRhFHNuuf6A90BPI7pz97TKdoYfLvp0kOYxikL4AsrcJGTnd8zpPxDTrMi1EIe5vBnjH+t8Uf2EPKJ8gaoOKDWgHOBe38jvei++jyE+gT/ggfAzXkofI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=515a120c.xn--yuvv84g.k1304; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=bu79e4OU72qRCbSpF/JjL29rmVTleDoW42RyugpWl9o=; b=suD8Xxhs2H4YoVi9+ACTnH2tbn45e4kSP7XSE20cWLRu8ot3321NwdkPyZiqfQMbxfRrbWmxKXKzsYWVpvh5ij0xYJfDdSCYQPekS+Br3Va5uE6gln+BPhPQ6t24VGCbKphHPiIHNUyFYXxutrlXo+hQyM3iRde8kIGItztQskw=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:02:14 -0000
Message-ID: <20130401230214.5709.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <515A02DB.2010309@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing an extension to DMARC to optionally require SPF and DKIM
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:02:38 -0000

>If I understand your note correctly, the problem that you cite with this 
>is that Forefront doesn't know all of the acceptable domains for a given 
>customer.  Wouldn't it make more sense to fix this issue, rather than 
>change the public standard and burden all recipients with the added 
>complexity in software and operations?

That's also a good idea.  

It'd make sense to change the SPF records now, then if they can fix
the internal systems so that they have the domains on injected mail
under control, they could change the SPF back to make stronger
assertions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email