IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Weaker single author signature

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 May 2015 17:57 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 A1D0D1A007F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:57:11 -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, 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 BPK2sBwtV9Qr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (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 93B881A0191 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so23306282wic.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
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=2sFF4Ut4VmDr5lYww+DO2S1IiT7IgT4rNbX9n7kTtrI=; b=ve8dtUlWuRavvQcdkjk8vQzA5O0agSJxcmumHeDh3ex+sgltMhTwJ+wItzi/yjHTbB 7zhMcJztOmzu1+a0OY0tQQTWp9y0DPXpYQDWXzM8mReBjW6IpY0/swZ1vHmlsg9wjqvQ BpkNaa0ibW5aNlg4ZG+dILM2NhdbgX+zBq4Dble39qiTTc1UP1MHyLNF5WT865oakLzG ESLqHbkTFKwyYZRFuHwOMu4AJeGrngCSoErEAGzn0YOTEm1wjLPCIxy+I5ERjz+TYqlc UpUuc6TzuOJvtwf1mrdbi+NR1cOwR7J+JZ40FlqTXBgfMK8Nk5w2If121lxV7EGuinZI tqmQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.61.208 with SMTP id s16mr7503547wjr.135.1432230986572; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.170.134 with HTTP; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BL2SR01MB605D2A70F12791658D2B8E696C10@BL2SR01MB605.namsdf01.sdf.exchangelabs.com>
References: <20150520032528.63043.qmail@ary.lan> <555C75AC.3060502@isdg.net> <BL2SR01MB605AB530E663EE86B2ECBF496C20@BL2SR01MB605.namsdf01.sdf.exchangelabs.com> <CAL0qLwbAX2Czb7RYD6M6Fupq5FFeXu3mCtQ6AB_tRvff=cYCTA@mail.gmail.com> <BL2SR01MB605D2A70F12791658D2B8E696C10@BL2SR01MB605.namsdf01.sdf.exchangelabs.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:56:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbGdb6MR_L1yOT997in8nkGOaYia6Oa=HBdmekQqdHRsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Terry Zink <tzink@exchange.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b86d3e630e97c05169b43ea"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QX_7ZSN0LtkORV4HlA3d-GRjCLE>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Weaker single author signature
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:57:11 -0000

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Terry Zink <tzink@exchange.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>
> Not sure how other big mailers would do it, but I would think it would be
> similar (especially Gmail).
>
>
>
At Facebook there are no longer any email-enabled mailbox services, so it's
not among the more interesting of the big cases except for the scale it
handles.  In terms of email it's just a forwarding service now.  So
inbound, it would check v=1 and v=2 and DMARC, and then hand the whole
package off to internal analysis machinery for a verdict.  If the message
survives, it's relayed; then, outbound, it would sign with v=1 and be done
because it's unlikely anything past that is an MLM.

Gmail, AOL, and Yahoo would be interesting to hear about.

-MSK

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status