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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 18 June 2023 21:39 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 0DCC8C151075 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.553 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 GvKaPzR0aW7m for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-f170.google.com (mail-lj1-f170.google.com [209.85.208.170]) (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 6B7AAC14CE36 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-f170.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2b466066950so21968191fa.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687124337; x=1689716337; h=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=uHrB2EIaY8PAOGz8d5IGAa2HY8/zUOs5Gf4CRSTvMK4=; b=VRdZ2bVd7tS5+QkEvO7oNCBFDaL0prFohfzKMsHWbOBDoJ1FBZospEBb8TqLagrtdC LCavaPU383fBl4fUBKv6G99oAaNqbv2+ud1Bkxnx7eS72V07naYli+Wjbyg418hv/RjJ cge9ZUyM250mYElgZETZ0rvxjfaa6XEm3QCAbdQq602v5ngPFmGy7g6LrrEJhKn4itKS WjvtL+nFQh/yEwQf1cJJ6Zwj102yF/v+1rH8tPzTKN9Fqszsn7xzn6tzQFTdpXHGiqs6 dyrkUkUg0hffaC2F/rLtjGw/bpWUf1MK5RjTMRCFid5U1Mr8YmnsrAcyzRfsdr6+JqvS BRZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyVZHw2L7oAGk63e8pUfWnPG+PZeWFnw0SqTHqCOyD2kBQnb5bX eBc5efq95vjt3AU3pTrF/k2P4GwgcEro0ro10JUKv1fX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ62QNQEIChOvQJvJBbNEJSqH8QDM5qhCTeSl9Z+mPT0hYiWu8IY09p+SJC1Y+uH668uCBlw0110oJyP8uYiiIQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1049:b0:2b4:6994:4753 with SMTP id x9-20020a05651c104900b002b469944753mr1997443ljm.42.1687124337140; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 14:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi> <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it> <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi> <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi> <5d9a0b0f-8777-2494-d779-376c6ab8b37d@tana.it> <7d39aa8e-dacc-05fa-eff1-2cc350d521db@inboxsys.com> <CAH48ZfwyBwfKzG_3R5uyV6tmY0yUtWy=5yAoAOEhUGn_Rz6HNw@mail.gmail.com> <47b8a0c7-6a52-a4ad-e98e-8cb2f881713e@inboxsys.com> <285f2d2e-13fd-7cdc-c816-fba759f0745b@dusatko.org> <CAH48ZfzhyZK3RQHXH-PPk=sqY9gOtpA85vV-Myyo_RrEvOGu-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEYhs4F9=GDsCuQ9pAi8z-MBNHUJ9jZCwipT3Qe_YjaD65s9mA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz-GRvXhOAWYn_mAypyoWm4L3=BKBxJad6X5NSFDD83yQ@mail.gmail.com> <31c265c4-2cec-9204-1e33-0771d5237cc5@dusatko.org>
In-Reply-To: <31c265c4-2cec-9204-1e33-0771d5237cc5@dusatko.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 17:38:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJWRyXk5hL4j7wKgW8nGMLvYySw+yCD75ar9oDtvC5BYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan Dušátko <jan=40dusatko.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/OjYHeDltJHzMKbG4xftXVcRMOKI>
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: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 21:39:00 -0000

> DMARC requires using SPF or DKIM or SPF and DKIM. If neither method is
> used, DMARC can report the situation, but it won't prevent receipt (m'I
> correct?).

You are not correct; DMARC is designed to handle this situation, among others.

I'll oversimplify here, because you really do need to read and
understand the DMARC spec:

A receiver that implements DMARC will look at the domain name in the
message's "From" header field and will retrieve the DMARC policy
record from that domain.  If the record says, for example, "p=reject",
and there is no SPF or DKIM authentication that matches that domain
name, that means that the receiver is being asked *not* to deliver the
message, but instead to reject it (whether the receiver does so or not
depends upon their own policy).

Now, of course, a sender that uses neither SPF nor DKIM on its
legitimate mail would be foolish to use a "p=reject" DMARC policy.
But if a spammer pretends to be them and tries to sneak by, well, as I
said, that's exactly what DMARC is intended to deal with.

Barry