IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 42A5B3A0831 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 qGj9wbqzZaHm for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184A63A0835 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id 184so6321102wmb.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=q9/Jw3G+CnuyZe0vzWRwKketiAoPP9Xkl/5ngL1DPGI=; b=B9rk36vwH9jpxv0sILhIzFFRASYUAm6kqSzhEwTfFubg74lAqrN3/4Xun/uXYj73yP ukE0yf7mvvBBwaG4eAthMjQeJ4LBKpk+kD6bqaUGPaQOsilqy+MEdBht/6sWSf+nD/vc 7wwDIdSXU/ZoLz8wcFz9wEzEoV4BwUQzlp4UYZ26NOeApZPAvzATesLWqlYGsGU0PV3b jZE5Hur4aJOHaiE7kVnrqhb4ekiCKADD4c4dzcArS1hNGtIGWr3D929s/Q0W+/sd+zfm Y9A3Bvv6H1bijXvJgFeNTJEe6pi5+mb0xThtTofFYAUIz7XKnFkzM/1F+WgDEPyW6YWs Feqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=q9/Jw3G+CnuyZe0vzWRwKketiAoPP9Xkl/5ngL1DPGI=; b=MWrAbJ38wBpWEMG5IYRXQIIZnMOzEyeasEWQdGkxVHK93YcKbqjD+eZ21XS3Yr4W54 LS5aYRSD5XV9UomUTFMX2927i7q8+S0oMnhSyFd1VX95CEZNc6thd+t4DR/f9zOWRbk9 42w2Pui9AKCO7m/8P/4gEMaLx8BwD6dklAnS8n5dMj0AX7EvbUxxYEEkqI2eIF/HZ3is Mosb+84WatX+JDeZ0yORCzfv24kMUfmaPDwc2MHQeOHJ8wymxOicTeonXPXC38yFfzFK 0LA5SywNDgkzF+IEL/ENHmHtm/ljGCiwM8M9p4N4NDaQxb0tCbRbxCXT5mh9VBl8gtQq 6Q7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WXQsP8A6icnADzy3Mg2NBFAPgEP/HLrF4KyHLvz1sG06+dnaN zERc1GMYJhViA16D0TP0j0wUiW9LlN6UbMttXUqWcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQN94eJw4wrWeYpKL/nGOG1DEnjYpcVFSVHi4ejCetEYCxHmNJWgyRu88+WQ8EAhcocHQFSHocZE0WIRkUU0A=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf3a:: with SMTP id m26mr6433525wmg.25.1597355621233; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200811034740.BA1831E7FDBF@ary.local> <0c8afc68-bc51-702a-c794-610b2d355836@dcrocker.net> <83a8e95f-d85d-634e-0c93-eb2ddab2c69d@wordtothewise.com> <99810a58-3809-bfd2-3571-bac54430f9e8@tana.it> <CAOPP4WHWoVkA+ZWZ+2AFnH8_nKBxO+t3Z4trz347JV0fsEy83Q@mail.gmail.com> <003501d671b9$467c0670$d3741350$@bayviewphysicians.com> <CABuGu1rhusgtqJd4k7XQBMaEnRkdxF8O_FTuYccEcwoKYjL4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rhusgtqJd4k7XQBMaEnRkdxF8O_FTuYccEcwoKYjL4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 17:53:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYd=ZZnZzsGsAaS9jfuHkHXBDQjNeTzR=-CGXwuGZeFczA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006236d605acc9567a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/K5m2KgN_qq9SdooTYvLJlh0sgCU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?
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, 13 Aug 2020 21:53:45 -0000

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:43 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:33 PM Doug Foster <fosterd=
> 40bayviewphysicians.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> The current DMARC architecture supports authorizing a vendor to mail on
>> behalf of their clients if the client includes them in their SPF policy or
>> delegates a DKIM scope to them and they use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that SPF is too limiting (including hard limits on complexity),
>> and DKIM is too complex for an uncooperative vendor.
>>
>>
>>
>> In most cases, a solution would be a controlled third-party signature
>> authorization along the lines of RFC 6541.
>>
>> The client would configure the authorization in his own DNS and the and
>> the vendor would only need to sign with their own DKIM signature.
>>
>
> If "DKIM is too complex for [this] uncooperative vendor", why would having
> the "vendor...sign with...DKIM" be workable?
>

Wrong answer. If the vendor is uncooperative then fire the vendor. 4-5
years ago it was difficult to find vendors who were willing to deal with
DKIM and able to do a good job in implementing. The common mantra was "how
does this fit into my business model". These days I would consider it table
stakes.

Michael Hammer

>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email