[dmarc-ietf] nit - data integrity
dmarcietf@tomki.com Sat, 15 June 2019 01:41 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=062c4ee08=dmarcietf@tomki.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 8131F1200C4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 j5-5IjdoyMhb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from athena.vistabroadband.net (athena.vistabroadband.net [69.39.252.35]) (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 09F1C120020 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-DK-Sig: tomki
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,375,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="44961110"
X-IPAS-Result: A2GQ9AAwSgRdAIc8aUtmhgQShD6CXoYdi1xiAYMqln4QLAERAYQoBAKCcksEAgcCAQECDAEBATJQgjoigxkVHiM1AiYCbAgBAYMeggsFqBKBMYh/gTCBDIlAglyBf4E4ineCWJRmlHIJlV0GG5cyhAygFIFnH4FacJQuIoE0AY8xAQE
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2GQ9AAwSgRdAIc8aUtmhgQShD6CXoYdi1xiAYMqln4QLAERAYQoBAKCcksEAgcCAQECDAEBATJQgjoigxkVHiM1AiYCbAgBAYMeggsFqBKBMYh/gTCBDIlAglyBf4E4ineCWJRmlHIJlV0GG5cyhAygFIFnH4FacJQuIoE0AY8xAQE
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23: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
X-remote-hostname: 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net
X-sendergroup: RELAYLIST
X-recvListener: Inbound
X-SBRS: -10.0
X-Filenames:
Received: from 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net (HELO borage.ViaSatDomain) ([75.105.60.135]) by athena.vistabroadband.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jun 2019 18:34:44 -0700
From: dmarcietf@tomki.com
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: seth@sethblank.com
Message-ID: <0a8b5459-8a9a-7a5b-d169-4c183c43afdd@tomki.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:34:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ii_dLXFzBNnRP361F922ty789I8>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] nit - data integrity
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: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 01:41:23 -0000
A while back there was a request for reports on nits pertaining to the specification. Here is one which I've circulated briefly to some folks recently in person, but I'm not sure how well received it will be here, as a plausible inclusion in the spec. The suggestion: provide guidelines on data integrity, which data providers should follow. Examples: - raw SPF 'fail' should never result in DMARC-SPF 'pass' - raw SPF 'pass' out of alignment with header_from should never result in DMARC-SPF 'pass' - raw DKIM not being shown should never result in DMARC-DKIM 'pass' etc I'm not saying that these situations don't occur for legitimate reasons, but the DMARC result is a logical evaluation. If the result of that evaluation is other than the receiving system wants to apply, then all of the correct evaluations should still be listed, but the disposition can change, and local_policy explain. Is this something which can be simply stated in the specification, or would it belong solely in a 'DMARC XML generator BCP' document? --Tomki
- [dmarc-ietf] nit - data integrity dmarcietf
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] nit - data integrity John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] nit - data integrity Hector Santos