IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mailing lists

Benny Pedersen <me@junc.eu> Sun, 05 December 2021 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <me@junc.eu>
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 58D6F3A0910 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 12:35:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=junc.eu
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 O51F7QdH1C7p for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 12:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.junc.eu (mx.junc.eu [172.105.72.99]) (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 A67553A090D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 12:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.junc.eu (localhost.junc.eu [127.0.0.1]) by mx.junc.eu (Postfix) with SMTP id 22C86811E7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:35:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junc.eu; i=@junc.eu; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1638736521; h=from : subject : date : to : message-id; bh=SH783iFvC7Li4nRgJVE6Oq/1L3hXQwlnRl3p5XsaUDI=; b=iMqZyju/YWdmrtX4ewMKjuytGZoBAO8/F9CudXLGoXD1e+OC41MXRa9xC7kRZMabd5wnK K7ERQvCv+fMrlwnf6C+PHJS5NUQRAJcJwVltr/ekr09Ay2UNSaO2VwO4CZOyF1XGhn1swdd ZGkmnQToM1obApT56G8FV4+7mAOYct6Bn+RSGlUf0XZ/78qL+JoqIb82u5v9tj2oDQlctO3 IL+WkbEL50SZla5FewS5ymR2NS/+aj+PltFSEhEs/HaGh88slwNCesVUC0HNfjq6HWF9beK bkGg6NfsDtHwxeqxQHdXdmOkWGT+XZZKRxZeyvvs4gnc8+Kb9CE3qxUSXDOQ==
Received: from localhost.junc.eu (localhost.junc.eu [IPv6:::1]) by mx.junc.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0048680D98 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 21:35:20 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 21:35:20 +0100
From: Benny Pedersen <me@junc.eu>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6d33e152-1b17-1a71-4a38-cdbfb7f9f38c@taugh.com>
References: <20211129030358.BC1EA30B80A5@ary.qy> <0e941529-1c93-b84d-ae7f-01c505a52c60@tana.it> <d6116d53-b415-f4d1-67e6-3a765f83754d@taugh.com> <4eb213fc-c269-3d62-36dd-50fd39efb368@tana.it> <CAAFsWK2BLP8+GOVzdDtn_PsyAGaKwt0Y3F_hQWkdTHdC6RhD=A@mail.gmail.com> <b2b240b0-a658-b852-fe22-6902de577745@taugh.com> <d3bb0d23-8930-8b7e-3c5e-03821daaae2a@tana.it> <CAAFsWK3yQAn-SSfpp7mAx70+EaCu=_bHjrDROyb+KL1gjKVb5Q@mail.gmail.com> <6d33e152-1b17-1a71-4a38-cdbfb7f9f38c@taugh.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <3fae3ae7c9fa80a44f5f73b90a607427@junc.eu>
X-Sender: me@junc.eu
Organization: junc.eu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/F168oNiYVWoYtxqlEX01IET5lSE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mailing lists
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 20:35:30 -0000

On 2021-12-05 21:24, John R Levine wrote:
>> Agreed there's risk in HTML hiding content and showing malicious 
>> things but
>> that risk has existed before.  An updated DKIM authenticator could 
>> help us
>> understand who did those malicious updates along some forwarding path.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that changing DKIM is very out of scope for this 
> working group.

+1

> We have a decade of experience with DKIM.  If l= were useful, someone
> would have figured it out by now.

is there any talks about dkim l= tag anywhere ?, can dkim verify l= 
number of lines is not changed ?, will it gives special results if its 
changed or not changed, does dmarc understand this tests in dkim ?

if dkim cant do this its not usefull dkim specs says it exists imho

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email