IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com> Thu, 14 March 2024 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <todd.herr@valimail.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 3568FC15107E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.477 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 gLbqDd-I6TcQ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com (mail-yb1-xb34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 9CA9BC151063 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dcd7c526cc0so898405276.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; t=1710427420; x=1711032220; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x5jycs3aX6pq0bWGwQ3gtXOBxY2rwn32WNxrP96p0dI=; b=Y3a0HvjlzOsoJe5+p1cuilRHRr50PzPrPyB0IooG9EuCNDs9fMidHhgs4vpYTWaa3E 7Esx1GkgVGaU5rG5RuE45E/r3YlHH4mxrPXmisarA5m9r06lc1DgiAPVHkXQTU2iWDZZ zFllnpQhNlL3F78g4HCI2OJGn0YYJNzoOV8mpChHdRxARqOEcQ38SjShLkqnepIPz3Vw ApppZ55lNwOUWKohz0OHDpNt3Ta5a7KIMXlcptlvMozPJBOP0VXFH2dRbBiY9KMoFKcx 0xoiSa/Q0A14Jy8IMi4mlrVeHX2fpF84+hcGn6PQbGCa8CeV1FdiuA/KC8bjvUaWcbe8 9nUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710427420; x=1711032220; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x5jycs3aX6pq0bWGwQ3gtXOBxY2rwn32WNxrP96p0dI=; b=HHxI4ILM65pH+NLd40CQ7Cy0FCT/IvwM0jlBlO09ghLJNq70EA/vKAI63REYgF95R3 d1zB0f85IQ9zLUY+DOHsyyYP0EQI3KPcTI6joYxsoDFORCrzITVJVs/Oe2asI94fAQwL duDXeUikrLaGy1FG989CWSzwk9OeCbaC2XdXaMtiAmSuxaxCxGMMMnyCfQImZaGzADCT XlbIPJp9RKSbR1TMwF0G1JZXceU19+9hV+E+LFWXdTtuNCiPt2vOWA+V+8NkZDDtLeBy LGcP20i6muHtfNinm9wjzPiohIzaay1p2Y8SBWNq/h7ndFGrgDShQ2D69UWoSwhQDvFK CPjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywtou2901LHCw6ehj7X75o97jUYxB6rYF2IxCVbMxz7Qxv+86rQ eVlYwTa9bzlLhR/7TV3nZYEyurm/tN3Sm+Z6gomKwbkqbVwL1sE+oSgehV9VWv94c47AVWxGjPh 6ozXbk3xEtPAKpPG/7UFvUgOg6aZTzhqFcpwl+zReGkH8CPKH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHwJLTNScqHX1wBP1WbIgSQUZNwd2QzH5jJjYB0cWRwsWdkgrKJ5BvImxR72gWmvzfCevEwB/kPL8ggLUquRzA=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c881:0:b0:dcc:cadf:3376 with SMTP id y123-20020a25c881000000b00dcccadf3376mr1841420ybf.18.1710427420335; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHej_8k=GC11rNesi6dRnMv+Bdrtq-GRfFPuGAJxfWa9ydpcPw@mail.gmail.com> <2150966.ihIA7YduRg@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <2150966.ihIA7YduRg@zini-1880>
From: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:43:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHej_8=wemr-OgNyCmmma95Bop_5oUbiCbmJm7tSzn=KSATiTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdbd8d06139fea1c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/OZnOg6eQuT3zVUcXk_GHPmRwvgc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:43:45 -0000

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:22 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

>
> I think MUST do SPF or DKIM, SHOULD do SPF, to do SPF MUST do xxx, SHOULD
> do
> DKIM, to do DKIM MUST do yyy is reasonable (that's how I parsed your
> proposed
> changes, is that right?).  I think it's an improvement and assuming I am
> reading it correctly, I support the change.
>

That is the gist of the text I've proposed, yes.

[rest snipped for further discussion when issue is opened and reported to
list]

-- 

Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem
Email: todd.herr@valimail.com
Phone: 703-220-4153


This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email