Re: [dmarc-ietf] Display address, was Mandatory Sender Authentication

Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> Tue, 11 June 2019 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
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 1649B12011E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=aegee.org
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 VmPLYaz_L1eJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.aegee.org (mail.aegee.org [144.76.142.78]) (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 D9AB5120129 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/x5BH1UT7004322; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aegee.org; s=k4096; t=1560272492; i=dkim+MSA-tls@aegee.org; r=y; bh=Lgkg2RK1IjRZKChMQyUtFU01UAst3rfnych7Sn0Jz4A=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=IRCam95cH/fKM/iNIhBdpIr5yJh97rO7dQZw52MzAitsq2gd0vL5kwxMhyE4JdTZq QFOJ/la65TozikMPgmV8mlaX/Ck7Fh6AloEsXxqxr6Ixkyq8Q39OVlyBRVo+DtQx1e 4i9ICmZnOwSXlnjTXiYHucUnmZH3ja1A33+b93sdrXTaVQhiN4wRAD0Sd8/pa7Esok o/HjvEx1/9zxyMhc/182rPiNy8ET/9ajLFIS42MWICckro0I8+lqq/SYYADTKXZyR3 h/V1XhjxHSTSTL2rd/Fg2OU1zk1SjBBXLmEPqURbSqntCu3Zt4ruoY62QwICOiGe3t l8wdN3GmPKY/jDV8sASO2Mq/+5KEU0uAdjRTz9soBkBqCTf5Q7kqeQjx1UCeg8u6j8 rGpn1eSvx7JX6jDhbpxLEMWi/+fRt6JsZrz0arl9FYUM20q9y1wItmrdxkfRYkxYfp mfAkFUgrHIUQPz+zS26PVAuXHDzEub+lDRmAm9zWNntH2hUoeB7ZAfQYqWIlbagDAx E8nu2Ws8aKKr5L/LaAlQ7DvE2hRCqrhqvSBNYNRsrnjDMI9I3tVOto5ASNX+JIOpCp NxWcc58cN0bv6p7sysvAzNfUeB0KXCHBGoKfLTLRvLJ+K5pobEd1ptvqXraqGDCIZj Owt/cfE/O6cMu265+kqrvLAo=
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/x5BH1UT7004322; dkim=none
Received: from Tylan (87-118-146-153.ip.btc-net.bg [87.118.146.153]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.aegee.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x5BH1UT7004322 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:01:31 GMT
Message-ID: <b290ef43f3f0a27b136189966693528b4b7ef333.camel@aegee.org>
From: Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:01:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7f8692bb-6b80-455e-f030-731f3ae36b58@tana.it>
References: <20190603142956.66B31120252@ietfa.amsl.com> <45cdc0da-5243-3a62-b217-8d5e4ea9ea11@dcrocker.net> <941abdbf28684283b972f69f25876220@bayviewphysicians.com> <5524dbb3-27ff-4aa8-aaf0-fc3a3fc23418@dcrocker.net> <1df2cc6b-c169-59ca-08f6-dadc06a702c6@tana.it> <1e096404-6b00-8896-0b79-841c243cacec@dcrocker.net> <7f8692bb-6b80-455e-f030-731f3ae36b58@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.33.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at mail.aegee.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/OkeNFdkUZXwM254oubfqhGyhUcs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Display address, was Mandatory Sender Authentication
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:01:37 -0000

Hello Alessandro,

> I'd propose bullets like the following for Section 12.4:
>     o  The authentication status of the message should be visible.
> 

For DMARC policy reject, the failed status will not be visible in the MUA, because the mail will not reach the
recipient.  Likewise for the policy quarantine, because this policy means “do not deliver” (and do not reject, but do
something different).

So if the DMARC evaluation status for policies Quarantine or Reject is shown, it will be PASS.

For policy None, I doubt that showing the authentication status has added value.

So if the MUA shows the status for DMARC it will be PASS.  When will showing the DMARC status to the user have added
value for her?

For SPF status... you know that redirects, if the MUA shows “failed SPF”, what shall the user conclude?

For DKIM evalution, that was not covered by the DMARC policy above, you suggest that the MUA shows "DOMAIN: FAIL/PASS". 
If it passes, then it is good.  But what shall be the conclusion made by the user, if the DKIM for a domain shows FAIL
(or missing DKIM-Signature header)? 

Regards
  Дилян