IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 10 June 2023 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 322AFC13AE3F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 icRXnluefYiv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f44.google.com (mail-ej1-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) (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 CA0D0C13AE3D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f44.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-977cf86aae5so350852566b.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686356855; x=1688948855; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc: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=FI/yx3to3IbMmNgtPuvvLTB/9VHbWNHqmCVNwmnQBPw=; b=Q5PGG7NDmba2IEZVkCCWyVBg33SoThOzTOr2eK3v4bwKZPj0JYO0x7ifeE1IH1E4bP VT1WOzyt71bzBkIZdQOcu+zYlWyC2Wrw81wq0G+ICKwEoaddAfmrUuFOSOp9aH/FR0hj 8dVKTY28pNIzpYgnUU+JTVEq9bnbdt8t9meLCJD7/7gUEzjJNZxcYGu5kPhR/a6W0vr/ FApUY9Zseg3hCzBLNT3Ndkh1uzW3wWD2APEuTefotiR9/YzR9+zkweNuPRKrRJKZx+Vv mqLV+3sbXp6zapBG2/I1IZj906aLPCu3xEpUu/27cJwXE+rjOe30E5wphmZmjFhgQbgu 19aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDws5Z2CKflcafF6B2Q9C16TWc0m3k11yWg9NXjVdE147bydx5VS AN4F7JwWkK8jsLMICS7hM628x4IiMA0LzLx17Vg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7+SssUOO8OONOg8h/+Ywai9NgcpDKbjuokXVroW11897YEY6tTv3TkySI9w3QQyfRXgru5c0Z+hKLXp1pE8s4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7da9:b0:973:946d:96ba with SMTP id oz41-20020a1709077da900b00973946d96bamr3017845ejc.69.1686356854811; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 17:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <CAL0qLwbx6Y=kmB5pQZx8gNqD=rLBYz1vLOX6ngL=wUHHUm0Hjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz3jo6Jy7ByfS9EM8Luy5atEtuTMtvDfYuo56Gj9ryRcw@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+obaK85BhemSBTJTxJCjMn++1vcTs8RyGJW5XCrtAHeg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLn1eMLKOuEDARyD8smV7frZPXhU5rn4Uq_Oyh43djzjw@mail.gmail.com> <05589B27-AB12-4186-AF2E-EB5002332DD8@icloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <05589B27-AB12-4186-AF2E-EB5002332DD8@icloud.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:27:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLQKSZNBBV=T5xFvReQo+YS=r9nvpwO9Ld5-KKsir9jnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hector Santos <sant9442@icloud.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Of8W7Y2GTXbaWQira7pMUPwzI9Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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, 10 Jun 2023 00:27:37 -0000

Hector, did you not understand this?:

>> We will *not* consider what should happen to
>> SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for
>> this working group under its current charter.

Please stop discussing it.

Barry

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Hector Santos <sant9442@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2023, at 4:41 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >
> > Repeating this one point as chair, to make it absolutely clear:
> >
> > The proposal we're discussing is removing SPF authentication from
> > DMARC evaluation *only*.  We will *not* consider what should happen to
> > SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for
> > this working group under its current charter.
> >
> > Barry, as chair
>
> For the record,  from a long time SMTP implementer standpoint, DMARC would be ignored, dropped, turned off, etc first before any consideration to stop SPF support.   As a Transporter, SPF works. As an Administrator - ADSP, I mean “Supper ADSP” aka DMARC has been horrible.  I, and most people, could easily deprecate Wildcat! DMARC with no harm and fact, less harm because the false positives will disappear.  My product add-on for wcSMTP, wcDMARC, never did honor the p=reject|quarantine. It was left for filters and no one hard any confidence to make it work.
>
> SPF on the other hand, I don’t see dropped in the name of DMARC.  So if it’s about sparate, but not abandon, that I can support - because it is already separate.  SPF preempts DMARC or any Payload protocol..
>
> Thanks
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email