IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Sat, 15 August 2020 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 B44913A0878; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 cyqUY71cnoGI; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (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 0B9CF3A0861; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id n128so7573898oif.0; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=HDhoFFIxbJge2RpWa3dUQlsvNy2QUJaxyHR99JrHh00=; b=ZEmFD6XnHO4SFyhxV+DgfCFOzJACQzv5TOxwayJQ129UOscsQimKZpCKt78697FANt BsM4iGk69DHMXm3A6awGwGStbkdiZ8+RAwr0H1IVVAx6uL6RygIzTRaUDtk7Oo2tjZrO 5E3txGZiZKrdSYyYm3oENyxs7KZJLFJRguV753cKTPvDbgaS7Js8tiXDi4DUIfUXP+Hl J++63a4E6w2PlKEEXO5t5wNIlDAzATAVR0fVEaMwF/c2XpVksifKe8USK6KyVAeIh+6x 0QnvHa44LGnt18Ors+P+6JOBshmQ1phB9p8wel8V3NTmcHtkEbqIvnY2+hBHT0WWwSrS O//Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=HDhoFFIxbJge2RpWa3dUQlsvNy2QUJaxyHR99JrHh00=; b=B+rdSG4SbPLJz4h2EGYJIxo3OQtJAYKC19bbktDyNHoeDSCyqa4PY03yZ5UzgdLcEO U0hLEks9DliPeCgHrsFTqKW+Lx0BbOk7v9Mrd8+3V5887TgXa0o996269ktXltLJrTJc /brYt7L0LUaXr0cwNl98Li035pOmrN1HVE4B28RHUAJvGR0xCcZTrnedgdzqJmEGBcBh pMjKcLmSzcd/pGetCpyezX9DtbQkyLfNTknqFejZdL/oYw+rDOjaaP0zTRqYEDW8qLgC CjmdQfF2CxPFQnMNcho4gQmwkfUdqvpXkEPzbUusE1hxNFmDmitdyhSJI3eLR/FNaLjF YP2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533c4Z5Mcu2XDdhdTdn301nOvhZ/ZoV+1/S+ycGtAqEAHuQasc6s wpeCNwE2WuVvnUScEM2kzJdjMbg0GHU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPe1YfBcmuhyCA+ZEKt7s2UjgGfHBvx+zxtbYCGuQW0dBmKLEiqGji7yJbHhYc6ofgUz2ApA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:601:: with SMTP id y1mr5447748oih.22.1597525785047; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:c031:520:d02:47a5? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:c031:520:d02:47a5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p189sm2645506oia.18.2020.08.15.14.09.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Cc: dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+H4D9+ELpsjxggEWwzg+WwUZs9mXzy8iNnLZCTfGORACA@mail.gmail.com> <745030ea-c2e6-16a4-690f-bbb639b9b8b8@bluepopcorn.net> <CABa8R6s0Qq93kQAH9_gw51ngW53PFUt4opzbGvyEXMg1Ja3xvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <79557858-26ea-e938-2df9-00ba7c6420d9@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 14:09:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6s0Qq93kQAH9_gw51ngW53PFUt4opzbGvyEXMg1Ja3xvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/R5G0XpVbd8YZXj6gFtNj3iosuOM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:09:48 -0000

> If DMARC wasn't experimental, maybe I could see adding it separately, 
> but this seems like a fairly fundamental change and shouldn't just be 
> a bolt-on

Without suggesting a preference, it's worth considering nature/implication:

1. Separate

    DMARCbis is likely to be small changes on the existing spec and 
incorporation of something like my draft's changes could  a) 
destablilize the effort, and b) make the bis effort take significantly 
longer.  Also, my proposal is a lot more fragile than the base DMARC 
spec, both in terms of possible technical issue and possible operational 
issues.

2. Integrated

    Merging them makes it more likely that the result really is 
integrated and seamless.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email