IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 09 June 2023 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 E4C0AC1519AE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 5ui25VdbsYvS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f51.google.com (mail-ej1-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 8A7C5C151709 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9745ba45cd1so236209466b.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 01:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686300130; x=1688892130; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0FuEJ/gzwCs6t8Rqs7CO8+8r5AGEKzDQB+vAgLejYQc=; b=VsZYMTiKXu5GmbGu5ROfFxpts19m6MufLsmGod386xkvEuw9wBKx8sfTMHweZQLJoA 4eQ2LgcKDC0yNnM/tz8TRUYI8mQp47AVJkX5RqPDdSdTWvqTW51W111CJJmyRFjOeUpj 9pjpOY3A9tUcIVRtbz2HCLGzjrhaTCwgv+ET+BHiig8AAe8AY2mtQWEiTMVf1MF/iE8u J7wRfvx8frQhEuajvefoJpecMxm23jjNBBdIKwFSuX3veGV/YvOSdgnp4jiVlxwAwmEh t9t3ZXGVA4jLdH26mvQckRJeU/XoDv7AblQD/8+/NZedeShFqvWZ2sU4HNleFpUfytci Pbrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzH/6ONOTjgQDUMQuAgDBIcdSVSynUdHEIyYx9tXkSsrg09ks3H Y11zBmlmyFaYpXdYBHtSnvZuIf6cUkSxXLjubw9UDLO38Mo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5yu2OJRZEeceAROzqDfre/Y4F29vmJUXbiEPLOeuabLUvfw8PZeZ74bjvsTrhf7bZC8EXSevE37dVFT0R4plc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:974f:b0:96a:411a:1cc4 with SMTP id o15-20020a170906974f00b0096a411a1cc4mr978877ejy.66.1686300129552; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 01:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <CAL0qLwbx6Y=kmB5pQZx8gNqD=rLBYz1vLOX6ngL=wUHHUm0Hjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz3jo6Jy7ByfS9EM8Luy5atEtuTMtvDfYuo56Gj9ryRcw@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+obaK85BhemSBTJTxJCjMn++1vcTs8RyGJW5XCrtAHeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+obaK85BhemSBTJTxJCjMn++1vcTs8RyGJW5XCrtAHeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 09:41:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CALaySJLn1eMLKOuEDARyD8smV7frZPXhU5rn4Uq_Oyh43djzjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/R6gCTjtH31hpMc958Sl13H4G0CE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 08:42:12 -0000

Repeating this one point as chair, to make it absolutely clear:

The proposal we're discussing is removing SPF authentication from
DMARC evaluation *only*.  We will *not* consider what should happen to
SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for
this working group under its current charter.

Barry, as chair

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:39 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for some data, Doug.  One comment on what's after the data
> (still talking as a participant here):
>
> > We have two topics intermixed:  (a) should we deprecate SPF for DMARC purposes, and (b) should we
> > deprecate SPF completely.   We should definitely not deprecate SPF completely.
>
> I am certainly not intermixing these!  I agree with you that we should
> *not* deprecate SPF at this time.  I am *only* supporting that we
> remove its use in the standards-track version of DMARC, and that's all
> this working group has scope to do anyway, according to our charter.
> And, yes, a recipient that uses DMARC with DKIM only... is quite free
> to *also* consider SPF in its decision about handling the message...
> just (if we do this) not as part of the DMARC evaluation.
>
> Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email