IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.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 7CF7F3A005C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.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 yMqcHMMVtkW4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFF73A0045 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FB039F149 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:06:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1609340817; bh=G6p0rwMF/yPe3YR5jWyssoMZQCCReIq7e5s6Z6eXFw4=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=Zsx/8eIeTKVvhRWASbAglUOQExCFQ8p7D7cE7Hxwr/nIyfmrhuGVK0EdESFZOUIyG N2ayxyygMgikYJI3jqprQvt41pRsYOuh5SLGRA401Tda0JTqEpY6CJFANIkkizdDlY b4aZqW9NtbK3vnF2x4eaSrsTafHqSFLmlLtfuNbA=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C38446B-5E9F-4BA4-92D6-FC8299DE4550"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:06:53 +0000
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8m0OWsTt+tcSgUh+Fxu=HH_57nsb2O1Q_fgA2453ceh4g@mail.gmail.com> <140485eb-020f-4406-3f2f-e2c475ea51e5@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mApfoF2ORgL+DoYTanrdhMjvT9H27kORwLKCQc1C9sRw@mail.gmail.com> <5588dbbe-b876-ed80-c80f-792380e3718f@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=kW_t_JkOxUud1Uz8+PrbMh5CfwfxZK=mhe0wjW8wQpw@mail.gmail.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it>
Message-Id: <53A477E1-3FE1-4D84-A930-BBC6AD006C05@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KUhOrpv8CCs-ar2y3mxJz6dvYjo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:07:00 -0000


> On 30 Dec 2020, at 09:42, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> 
> On Tue 29/Dec/2020 22:02:20 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/29/20 12:47 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
>>>> Unless those values in parens are a MUST requirement, the dmarc=fail is highly misleading.
> 
> 
> I agree with Michael here.  When a (trusted) dmarc=fail is seen downstream, its consumers neither know what policy was specified nor whether it was honored.

The auth-res result posted as an example of DMARC failing earlier in this thread: 
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com <http://mx.google.com/>;
       dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org <mailto:header.i=@ietf.org> header.s=ietf1 header.b=aayvF8Pg;
       dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org <mailto:header.i=@ietf.org> header.s=ietf1 header.b="PwU4/yuQ";
       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@mrochek.com <mailto:header.i=@mrochek.com> header.s=201712 header.b=PRr8Q7Zv;
       spf=pass (google.com <http://google.com/>: domain of dmarc-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> designates 4.31.198.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dmarc-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:smtp.mailfrom=dmarc-bounces@ietf.org>;
       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=mrochek.com <http://mrochek.com/>
The policy statement is right there: p=NONE. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email