Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mailing lists
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 29 November 2021 09:52 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 EFE013A101C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 01:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 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=-1.852, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=/WIE5/Jy; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=B5X6urgn
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 iO8_VkztZAJT for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 01:51:54 -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 9A7B83A101B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 01:51:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1638179505; bh=nXGi2jFcSla+G9SPCllOswPk8whYyEk7NS7FYjydeIA=; l=1512; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=/WIE5/JyJZ5LjEdAbDRTMtl6i0uEfyyFLoQe/2wtQdCqWjkzUV3MZ4/0vj38BggrW tcRHshzHPCSRrUKtgmWDw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1638179505; bh=nXGi2jFcSla+G9SPCllOswPk8whYyEk7NS7FYjydeIA=; l=1512; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=B5X6urgne5UBz5EW+XExMcW4g6ykd3lO0C4su9U/PHZbujN2q4XVgqnjbJhhRxCW2 L8ZBbZ8mOdLTwtZlojmNqEXq6A7wIWxbpPaIupdSPuEWHLTKtJTXIO3SXRC9r8u1pA D2VE/wZvIHKWLUcw6BxQNiQ1+2K4wPWKfJC9UAD4LVaIxjal7UlzI1N2GLxeF
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
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 00000000005DC0D6.0000000061A4A2B0.0000253D; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:51:44 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
References: <20211129030358.BC1EA30B80A5@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <0e941529-1c93-b84d-ae7f-01c505a52c60@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:51:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20211129030358.BC1EA30B80A5@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MKgdtkeKzNNguNWHwtrop0gvb_g>
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: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:52:02 -0000
On Mon 29/Nov/2021 04:03:57 +0100 John Levine wrote: > It appears that <ned+dmarc@mrochek.com> said: >>> It appears that Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> said: >>>> If the RFC2045 canonical representation at the final destination can be the >>>> same as the canonical representation at the original sender, ... >> >>> When we were working on DKIM canonicalization we had lengthy discussions about >>> what to do about MIME and we decided not to even try. >> >>A mistake IMO. > > This was part of the discussion about what sort of body modifications to > allow. We ended up with optionally ignoring white space changes, and l= to > ignore added text. My impression is that neither is useful. Very few > messages pass with relaxed canonicalization that don't also pass strict. Using relaxed rather than strict is quite different between header and body. It is fairly frequent to find reflowed headers, especially with MLM handling, while bodies remain mostly untouched, except for CR additions and removals. Of course, X-MIME-Autoconverted rewrite bodies beyond strict/ relaxed range. (That's the original mistake.) > The goal of l= was to allow mailing lists to add footers, but as we've seen > in this discussion, if a list adds a footer it's likely to make other > changes too. It'd be enough to add the subject tag on new messages to address the other changes. Using l= works well with a wide range of mailing lists. However, it only works with plain text. Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mailing… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… Baptiste Carvello
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] UNCOL and Reversing modification… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… ned+dmarc
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reversing modifications from mai… Alessandro Vesely