IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 19 April 2023 17:35 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 1FCFCC14CE47 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="tz4l5ec5"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="BGV2uIL1"
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 xC75uLNB1_ke for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99653C151B08 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1681925708; bh=Ro6JI54tk+rt4w58dnP+P+zIhgWaZ6xzSM/e4I0aqYA=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=tz4l5ec5WRtk/0TuzaZ5Cnyu6K/c18Sz+UV11zApJ/XCy02wjNzI38uHAZtK0jZeG SnHgO1zhJEuhl6EsIc7Bw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1681925708; bh=Ro6JI54tk+rt4w58dnP+P+zIhgWaZ6xzSM/e4I0aqYA=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BGV2uIL1bDr6BhIzYEiKpPQhx8rLQskWsinRLWhjTeLLSWLGFoFgXKMUoEKxCxxo4 hqHejR/PUWQcSckaYtibJR4kgJmrFu58hAoO0yHbA713VonBiPvqqL1DkAdPcX18+c 1UkTW6lDX0ZMyDgTiwxiS3UxezSghHyHFzc5+KCFSwdsdhRrnIDhLeBgDpoQe
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
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 00000000005DC0BC.000000006440264C.00000175; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:35:08 +0200
Message-ID: <0abf9711-ca1c-bfcf-afb2-15e16b9de149@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:35:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20230419132048.50E0CC01C901@ary.qy> <CF4A2AA2-7EAC-4525-844F-530A12DEC065@wordtothewise.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CF4A2AA2-7EAC-4525-844F-530A12DEC065@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MVfSlpllLe4_mMNx9kf7GkmPEy0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:35:21 -0000

On Wed 19/Apr/2023 15:37:25 +0200 Laura Atkins wrote:
> To me it’s not so much the company can’t delegate authentication - it’s how 
> many SaaS providers (some of which are ESPs and some of which are 3rd parties 
> that send through ESPs) are incapable of supporting DMARC alignment. Not it’s 
> hard, not it’s challenging, but simply … can’t. They cannot sign with foreign 
> DKIM domains, and they cannot support different domains for SPF authentication.
>
> Should DMARCbis make the recommendation that if you are providing mail services 
> that you SHOULD be able to support corporate customers using DMARC?


IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better you 
have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase, expanding a 
bit the first bullet in Section 11.4.  That can also be a good place to explain 
the kind of damage DMARC causes.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email