IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sebastiaan de Vos <sebastiaan@inboxsys.com> Thu, 22 June 2023 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sebastiaan@inboxsys.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 00B2CC169501 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 06:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inboxsys.com
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 Uj9JncLRE1H3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 06:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta1.inboxsys.net (mta1.inboxsys.net [168.119.108.63]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 80376C135DEC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 06:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.inboxsys.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F14273FCF0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:46:10 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inboxsys.com; s=deliv202301; t=1687441572; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FtteCoos8F1MW7UD0OrsZgo8zq20LKkk9MBjHSCQmCI=; b=VPqAF7nXn/cnzH2++V1MW0Kcdvkt0bI4PSL1msZW104CZLX+8zBvlp3jjwBGrTzncmUhQU iyKNCMquOgt8uRBQnGdqzkbO2Kk9vtS9eCCbVp1Jp0AWYvBiSdjnNW6beoLJAyhkoiHh5p TuXZkmos9FsfHxSyEGQMK0AYyXiFNrzPmd/IroJrbO/ZU2wbs0FtoSiafJRjGdnf16kmEv 5sxDsMV9ufu6muVt75hJEp7rxGgCPrqChjb+qs8a98p7i187hBgAolTofvuavn0DvnEkiG oHcA2iCAPiqOwELRSV0pEoVjlKupb47YOB2EQ2wyq+Nc/LEaXLiFNImJHRMD3g==
Authentication-Results: mta1.inboxsys.net; auth=pass smtp.mailfrom=sebastiaan@inboxsys.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------41IuASaS01KQmsn7UB0Ejh0a"
Message-ID: <d30d574d-0cb8-bfc4-0d9f-7176882fc81e@inboxsys.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:46:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <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> <xtudkqv5sqxs4c2nnilna5lf4b266br4xwdjwoq4fdyjpgzjln@xdb5rldfeini> <3087d0fa-91b4-62b4-fc64-a705c7f0b672@taugh.com> <CAHej_8=VnOC1Pms2JKJYG=2Dqtp2nc9oe-j=aEmNfvGuNhvzZA@mail.gmail.com> <a9505fda-ed21-1fc6-adb6-f231225a1ceb@tana.it> <CAHej_8nNGQR9Bm59dsu=XG7iBGyyW=SCh4=0cBM8NWodHyo6pQ@mail.gmail.com> <2de0ca2a-2c18-91ae-f306-38e70aaebf8e@inboxsys.com> <CAH48ZfwjMEwG=b7EsKkXQLzPgcysMLOj2QhZ7_8fs6uQ7zxXYQ@mail.gmail.com> <2080c6e5-2b57-be82-995b-a0986c3a45c5@inboxsys.com> <CAHej_8=7M=zJB2ENbnEQfRMfwEXDnGo61jHE_qQPTc0V9tFMdA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Sebastiaan de Vos <sebastiaan@inboxsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=7M=zJB2ENbnEQfRMfwEXDnGo61jHE_qQPTc0V9tFMdA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MailHeaderCheck: {"connection_id": "BCBHEZXEJY37", "qid": "F14273FCF0", "error_response_text": "", "result": "accept", "actiontaken": "accept", "dry_run": "yes"}
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QgMUnedmsPtlz1F7E0YkPkdn1gQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, 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: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:46:20 -0000

It's not easy to set a DKIM key, I can agree with that. I do think, 
Marty should have tested before sending, though.

None of this, however, solves the issue of SPF weakening the DMARC 
standard. The weakness in SPF is not incidental, but systematic. That is 
- independent of the numbers - the reason why I vote to have SPF removed 
from the DMARC standard.

On 22.06.23 15:31, Todd Herr wrote:
> When we look at the numbers others have posted on the topic, and we 
> see a perhaps higher than expected percentage of DMARC passes that 
> relied on SPF only (or at least a higher than expected rate of DKIM 
> failures) I'd posit that many of those DKIM failures are due to the 
> challenges that Marty and people like them face with getting the key 
> published.
-- 

Sebastiaan de Vos
Founder

Tel: +43 680 200 22 95
E-Mail: sebastiaan@inboxsys.com
Website: http://inboxsys.com

InboxSys Brochure <https://inboxsys.com/inb_files/2019/04/InboxSys.pdf>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email