IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] no DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 0FA68C15108B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="2sMtBOg1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="lTYwh0D+"
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 IheCWThnsZ5E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (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 473F2C14F711 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C2F8F801A6; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:24:02 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1711081427; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=z5jRJNphgos4QM0bvtpoZ/nex2CSqJ/IfoQ3zDQ5ObA=; b=2sMtBOg180Q0RdAP28O9Dxs/1t5Jq9rJnwR0xmGU3RWoHDMPO1U319qhHPVw5aw1+4/TN dQeTpDQOzih/wCdCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1711081427; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=z5jRJNphgos4QM0bvtpoZ/nex2CSqJ/IfoQ3zDQ5ObA=; b=lTYwh0D+ErPbeBSTxJJiZk662gfSrc8HRpB5x0C4a+Y/8lL+eN7KqqQPFY7KP4mbdhw2X DSxa6sGZ+UDcTl24aS9PkQ01dj3VezdyrRQs7+qRAbAJZzujuLY9dWkee8iqh+4EIZc5wr5 jkNH8nB5UfZKin295f3fSj+rjC6OeI68nFz1u36ijKep6apJmlUlJTYQOy0TX/TNmluy8w8 /8OcuOYP0jFgbFvC8JdlZCZicuL/h2u6gbXEFODK6Xdnj2emWQfSQtgfOqjNBOvIgdX2aIV Iogo9iqbiqgPKDFinR5getHxLMyJr+EvA8uM5woK57ZTZEbwUwZ0IHJCGvhg==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 480A6F8005B; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:23:42 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <utirpc$6e0$1@gal.iecc.com>
References: <27cf610e-8666-410c-b015-6c33478af9b4@tana.it> <CAL0qLwber-s8nNDEz_TAJijh0Py-ch9G4jb9gbguEQCc17xANA@mail.gmail.com> <497E0C77-354E-445A-9758-F6BC6058B980@kitterman.com> <cdec1c75-237f-41d8-bdbb-0b4477f6cebf@tekmarc.com> <utirpc$6e0$1@gal.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <2A60D769-C3D2-4A55-9136-7E54AF8FD8CC@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/RZKIwSME1Ps3ahG0r43168QbiEI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] no DMARC result for DKIM testing and policy
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, 22 Mar 2024 04:24:17 -0000


On March 22, 2024 2:52:28 AM UTC, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>According to Mark Alley  <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>:
>>> I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I can see people thinking there's some correlation between DKIM testing and DMARC
>>testing.  It's not completely illogical, so it might be better to be explicit.
>>> Scott K
>>
>>Agreed as well. It's worth calling out, IMO.
>
>I disagree.  DMARC is a decade old and I am not aware that anyone, ever, has had problems due
>to confusion about DMARC and DKIM test flags.  This document is already too long and too late.
>
>Unless there is an actual problem to solve here, let's close the issue and finish up.
>
While I generally agree, DMARC for the last decade didn't have a testing flag.  That's new in DMARCbis, so I don't think that's really germane.  This particular thing is on us as a working group.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email