IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed rework of the wording in section 2.1 of draft-dmarc-interoperability

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 11 December 2015 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DAC1A6F2E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:48 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4eUkXDJhSpVS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44DC1A1AB5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkha189 with SMTP id a189so110290489vkh.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=n0Plnrxjxwwyb+dlWGT6tUOhSfXN+gpGqUccFO1dSOE=; b=RQm9VozOGbdumHhJDAjoZA5a6pCkaQKWpmmnnoF5lGbZHLF2HcKBcS3skzmHJnKIcB gwoio1cPN7WqKQilAmfi3crQt1V499RlhtiFpuQKNubALIkDjWYL4ar0QL4UsciPjJwu CZlbEaULU7XurY/lg/3Lhz5nr2zoa1xPa/wTzWrDOEo8+w+AW9GQprz46IKVNkMdmIGW X6MrZdGzjPCNFWcNPBlfTW9KI4RxccXK4Jpvt4XNH5t9HN8t84hy2cbS/B0oLckNArWz nxfy+aGOvklFfcZvgJFtrpTlIFZnjSE2SSax8SI1YRwlVUAzLM9SttAnYQsShN7Tg3l1 43dw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.7.11 with SMTP id 11mr14119632vkh.155.1449817543974; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.83.73 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <22120.25235.362274.401994@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
References: <CABuGu1pKn-nH57JzNQSqLHHxTZXe9CXWvz7bB6ynZ8PC7QOtTQ@mail.gmail.com> <22120.25235.362274.401994@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:05:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYtGsJ8_253KfdJM3drOz7584w4fUGXqFqyEZL3cbHQiA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143d96eb2aae7052699f32a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PjNRkcEmYzLwr4QE7PS1mDYfWSU>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed rework of the wording in section 2.1 of draft-dmarc-interoperability
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:05:48 -0000

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>
wrote:

>
>  > 2.1. Identifier Alignment
>  >
>  > DMARC relies on DKIM [RFC6376] and SPF [RFC7208] to perform message
>  > source validation. The DMARC [RFC7489] mechanism refers to source
>  > domains that are validated by DKIM or SPF as Authenticated
>  > Identifiers.
>
> I would add
>
>     The Authenticated Identifiers defined by these specifications need
>     bear no relationship whatsoever to the content provided by the
>     author of the message or even to the system which injected the
>     message, though they usually do.
>

Do we think that's necessary here, or is that same advice which is (I'm
fairly sure) present in RFC6376 and RFC7208 sufficient?  I guess another
way to word that is: How independent is this work from full understanding
of those?

I suppose in the end it can't hurt to be sure and repeat this caveat here.


>   > 2.1.2. SPF Identifier(s)
>  >
>  > The SPF specification [RFC7208] defines two Authenticated Identifiers
>  > for each message. These identifiers derive from:
>  >
>  >     a. the RFC5321.mailfrom [RFC5321] domain, and
>  >     b. the RFC5321.HELO/EHLO SMTP domain.
>  >
>  > In the SPF specification, the RFC7208.MAILFROM [RFC7208] value is
>  > defined to be based on RFC5321.mailfrom unless that value is absent
>  > (as in the case of "bounce" messages) in which case, the second
>  > (RFC5321.HELO/EHLO) identifier value is used. This "fallback"
>  > definition has occasionally been misunderstood by senders since
>  > "bounce" messages are often an "automatic" feature of MTA software.
>
> I don't understand the last sentence, specifically why automated
> bounces would lead to a misunderstanding of SPF identifiers, and who
> the "sender" is (author? RFC5322.sender?)
>

I would also change "In the SPF" to "In that", since the context is
established in the first sentence.

I agree, I'm not sure what that second sentence says at all.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email