IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 09 December 2020 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 1F18A3A07A0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 H07mtHkUGqNX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 43F013A0AF9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 03:46:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607514401; bh=H+z9WDJ08FhpIitQsS0uqiL9O4NOxhTwv6LdnOzkMEo=; l=854; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DTJ+MXXRRa32Qvc6A06Ivc0y19G3syXCSYciI1Yhvd2CRwkyNKuVLTdknK1Jbi1CA PPHNlM5633UF2Z0auSdWq/tu+0Fff4hlEwmN7Z7bl+kFF5cXN5qc/VYU4C7xcaRsww hWhG7jrLk0Sen+L+Hr/Y3SJY4tBg8aHXWp7xy5S/3hX73Sr/uUjuYaqJYf/Jl
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC056.000000005FD0B921.0000586A; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:46:41 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201207221345.09DD72922E4A@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <45879906-41f9-3af8-b4fb-64d99d552fff@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:46:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201207221345.09DD72922E4A@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QXXCUculXZq7zMMquXZRBhRLZ30>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:46:59 -0000

On Mon 07/Dec/2020 23:13:44 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <CABuGu1prNdJKP_-2yv7NbnbVH340D75PPxKmeDTHEd8qG+0RtQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>>> I have a slight preference for the first option.  HELO is too arbitrary in
>>> the protocol for me to put much value in using it in any of these systems.
>>
>>There's a bit of an implementation detail though. If one is relying on an
>>encapsulated ck_host() function then you may not know whether it checked
>>the HELO or the MAIL FROM. Imposing a requirement like this from DMARC
>>seems like it verges on a layering violation.
> 
> You should be able to look at the bounce address and if it's null,
> skip the SPF check.  No need to peek inside SPF for that.


That would discard most bounces, since many MTAs send them directly, without 
going through a signing filter.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email