Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 03 June 2020 18:31 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 C27F73A110B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
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, 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=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 kkbMvH_PUwuE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
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 E746B3A0EEF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1591209038; bh=/ViVwrxnWcyKi/7JNUUNjq4pyJsdl7dJ2v8HvsFq+LY=; l=3174; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A2xxdEJamA5Jc1A8JUy1Sx0xYFyOvWKzr8LCfCSpRcJWe47FUSSupleF7pELh9c8H QPgDNl02FYiLsEE9xC83jP2jlLagCzMghbV+UssICjaOgZiN2G8knaDhWmtq+SkRUV JtE5NSZCvNMRCGElrR6/ixpWwj1k1ZUMqdbIQgs7vmV43x8jS6PLFjrLMdmDu
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC02A.000000005ED7EC4E.0000215D; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 20:30:38 +0200
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <DM5PR0601MB367115AD49513EAF3953716CF68B0@DM5PR0601MB3671.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <18441e8d-cf87-053e-4957-7b9d6ea9690c@gmail.com> <ff98e267-8e7b-2015-cc1b-7061d04097d8@tana.it> <71b7426b-4619-fd50-4038-3418f3181b1d@gmail.com> <2d1d4b31-ad19-db95-b32d-f89c914195a5@tana.it> <1f04f4fd-5c92-b61d-3ca1-e6ea954e33f7@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <b23c91d7-d1b6-6a90-6f59-57178b0fa826@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 20:30:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1f04f4fd-5c92-b61d-3ca1-e6ea954e33f7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MQ7BBB7iYj_wE0gXNKg1Dpi9XiM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
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, 03 Jun 2020 18:31:23 -0000
On Wed 03/Jun/2020 19:27:52 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/3/2020 10:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On Wed 03/Jun/2020 18:43:16 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote: >>> On 6/3/2020 9:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>>> MUAs should be discouraged from displaying or using Author:, unless >>>> (verifiably) signed by a trusted domain or otherwise configured by the user. >>> Why? >> That avoids the dreaded back-to-square-one path that Brandon conjectured. It >> prevents attacks based on this field, while maintaining the DMARC paradigm. > > The barrier you specified sounds reasonable. But it isn't. > > Any signature put in place when the Author: field is created is likely broken > by the time it gets to the recipient. That's the entire problem that > necessitates rewriting the From: field. That depends on who creates the Author: field. I'd imagine it can be created on rewriting From:. If it exists already at that time, one can still check (by ARC?) if it was signed, and, in case, sign it in turn. > We do not require 'signatures' on Subject: or the Body or Date:. This is just > one more field. Right. To sign Author: wouldn't be a DKIM or DMARC rule. It's just a hint for MUAs. Rather than thoughtless treating Author: as From: by default, do some serious checking and/or trust user settings. > The concern about square one is misguided, apparently mostly because it > continues the erroneous belief that the validation work is done for the end > user, rather than the filtering engine. Besides that, it ignores the fact that > authentication mechanisms are presumably still in place. Some authentication results are displayed to the end user. They are important in edge cases. > Users are tricked by the content of the message, not by the From: (or Author:) > field. The content is only seen if the message is opened. In the message listing I only see the display name. So, it is important that the display name comes from a trusted field. That is to say, from From:, at least in the default configuration. When the message is open, on edge cases the user should first look at the authentication results, which shows the domain name on a decent MUA. > On the other hand, a clean From: (or Author:) field enables consistent MUA > organizing of messages. Messing with the From: (or Author:) field by > intermediaries defeats that. Intermediaries already mess up when they rewrite the From:. Adding an Author: allows that mess to be partially undone. Experience seems to indicate that mailing list software reacts more quickly than MUAs. MUAs will not add an Author: field any time soon, especially if it has to be a copy of From:, with zero added information. And then an Author: field is only needed by mailing lists and similar minorities, when the From: is rewritten. Recall DMARC was adopted because the amount of such traffic is negligible. In addition, I'd dare hypothesize that users who subscribe to mailing lists are more skilled than average (?) They should be able to configure a MUA to deviate from the "safe" behavior in certain cases. Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Brandon Long
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Pete Resnick
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Stan Kalisch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with R… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Douglas E. Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] About user notification in the M… Stan Kalisch