IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Give up on SPF alone

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sat, 15 April 2023 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 0F02DC14CE4A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:22:43 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DTVrSCpq-8yU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (mail.winserver.com [3.137.120.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 930FFC14F74A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=892; t=1681597353; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=JM2zwqf+C4hshzsJWk4EEjS+QvjpPjVa9Zpuk0SkCow=; b=czeO qSjAMhpYhpRuXqzqMpOKXPO595JU1haFG5J9fKELIwWPTE1thyPHAfk2ZTvyTQab Le1MjH2E9RadEzfNQ9SXRwVp8KSnOOGZ6TY2UagaXdVg6HTehU7ZCW3Lr1YaW9u6 llBMuNvbwvMS+83DwzEGlKfbcNTInefOhoWdCEo=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.13) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:22:33 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.13) with ESMTP id 1990148816.1.3348; Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:22:32 -0400
Message-ID: <643B23B0.7020206@isdg.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:22:40 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwZc2X7tyP+_8vvL3Yb7uJk6td3XGbsXUB68BNUEMhV4yQ@mail.gmail.com> <8d970e6b-8fa7-da85-5c47-d485abbc43be@crash.com> <CAL0qLwZJjBq0T8kODJifTT10ttJJE2Bof5kJZACRTwyauzwQ6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYcHeFe0kS9QHz4fP5TbOMOiW8mJaiNYx+Yk8keZYW-yDQ@mail.gmail.com> <b6a2b444-de02-9833-fe7b-fc9ad542f900@tana.it> <CAL0qLwYwcXTBzqd=3sKwtZJUsEYO5kfv9V-CZtVHz2TQ78v=0g@mail.gmail.com> <909C826B-2745-4BE8-AD16-920E6DE86D1C@kitterman.com> <329db752-fdeb-7633-ede1-06e435db1c0e@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa=cA7426zgNJQFDBBqOKA6KXyBGAE4TOy=C+c9+JUY3A@mail.gmail.com> <168596BD-B688-4AF6-87E8-B25F9D2BD663@isdg.net> <CAH48Zfx0yXefioHoQi_Jq6hbMotcQZsDAhD5cXuBTRSxn2wXbA@mail.gmail.com> <C134972F-EAEA-4FA4-B65A-24B53338E5DD@isdg.net> <CAJ4XoYf4Oac61J41FaSi4PCNwpFiOhWm90TwasNvrp91yeW1UQ@mail.gmail.com> <5DAE096A-B547-4569-A3C6-34ED9EC91B2D@isdg.net> <CAH48ZfwDwNkN1_8JtVNv134SK4_HWt=LRtxS-kB81TDE2t2WeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfwDwNkN1_8JtVNv134SK4_HWt=LRtxS-kB81TDE2t2WeA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ML9K-jJBQbDTvpCRzbVMVQ8eS30>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Give up on SPF alone
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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 Apr 2023 22:22:43 -0000

On 4/15/2023 11:27 AM, Douglas Foster wrote:
> Sorry Hector, but you are wrong on the theory and off topic.   DMARC 
> and SPF authenticate different things.  DMARC is designed to 
> override SPF Fail to handle the case of forwarding without SRS, 
> which would be optimal if all messages were signed.

SPF is ignorant of DMARC both literally and technically.  DMARC 
depends on SPF and it may never get a chance to be tested.  That's the 
reality.  Sorry.

> Bandwidth optimization was an issue when we were on dial-up, but now 
> we size capacity to need, and use other defenses for DDoS attacks 
> that saturate bandwidth.

Who is we?  Anyhow. Not applicable.

> Discarding DMARC is not feasible, because you cannot revoke an RFC 
> and you cannot make people stop knowing what they already know

Way over my head.

-- 
Hector Santos,
https://santronics.com
https://winserver.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email