Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 11 February 2021 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 B4A343A142E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 01:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 rthCKx5ykmng for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 922E03A140F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1613034483; bh=35XOaDXJiM4BLrFyXWcd90FjiQi+ggdANAABjpqvXp8=; l=615; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C9fniGM2MbmYSykY3d2lzW2k/kanE6X3spkgqbSaaAqOmo90HTVwn7I/lr/B+++Z9 h54L/Eyam02yaNXHAMcADc+0TvSHq5FC+UfQNZt1ZWrT1ebmZBD6Gui5fH6oOzIcp3 7/I5A6nZj83cccA+VYTXRGqirVdQh/9zzalyM5hdYfT7gw00FbNK8OY/tIcoe
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC050.000000006024F3F3.000061D5; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:08:03 +0100
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20210203181226.9AB746D51182@ary.qy> <CAHej_8k6DA8140QB2buaRCaJfc0U9fVSC=nSAu-dWsZshCRX_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfxFsQ5ntE05QYRqP5P3Na6vuDjNAQKAdjZe7Kvt7evKuw@mail.gmail.com> <2285569.RditZUVBbg@zini-1880> <ea27d175-e436-fa40-0571-da1e0189d488@tana.it> <2244314.3GJdnAqG3q@zini-1880> <CAH48Zfynp=BVKXeyWO=KL=TVRiUDVuvckWDgpZFbVeVjBBqjaw@mail.gmail.com> <0d7de3eb-5b14-510c-cb4a-c78bc34610d8@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <25831f17-5470-ff89-5108-2a4f1121c985@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:08:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0d7de3eb-5b14-510c-cb4a-c78bc34610d8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GaPu_dV9gEm4w_GrVWJZGIYH19Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:08:14 -0000

On Thu 11/Feb/2021 00:29:02 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/10/2021 3:24 PM, Douglas Foster wrote:
>> Huh?  Are you asserting that SPF MAILFROM and SPF HELO are interchangeable?  
>>  They are not, but they can work together.


They are not but they could be.


> Perhaps I misread, but I thought I saw that this really is out of scope for 
> this working group.


  2. Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification

The working group will not develop additional mail authentication
technologies, but may document desirable uses of existing authentication
technologies.


Best
Ale
--