Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 17 November 2016 23:05 UTC
Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 33BCF129408 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:05:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=EYpLtmfi; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=x77spL3z
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 F45iMvByM2df for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (dkim.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5164F1293E1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:05:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1560; t=1479423905; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=mWdMUJTVEssyjw74Bpbb0g5UqGc=; b=EYpLtmfikoaQygqLK3j8NrRjI3nIy9xKZyGlJBHdxdg5ij57YGgEtXHWmMJ452 ZeELkVNMOIayjiT4AeBbE0VFtVdh53pOlJeKZ0bgjJ6x8cvRgRhoP4yYSadG3JBh 6VsMFUGAPmzx0MxgBBTWrM6rRF330PPzPUR+v84uG4Evc=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:05 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 962865190.1.2212; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:04 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1560; t=1479423866; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=P3zQ0dm +uinbCW5Zt3i3jD1m2h3Z5HtjVUoRdf+NN8g=; b=x77spL3zPNO/cz7BUl1iB0M BIrIQXukOOrtVnmSGQdTnlm4Bdvw0VLOps3tuIFpElvG4TaPBR8RPown4hl68Xu5 OBTQ6YDa3trmettEkPGvMdLzAoS/dAJXr8Cz8kc6+9CBT65QYLujO8vVtsv+IhGk WoFAJ7KvAZRYiw6CQ/xs=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:04:26 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 959330343.10.219076; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:04:25 -0500
Message-ID: <582E379C.4040302@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:00 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611142158000.21738@ary.local> <01Q7ASDZFS6C011WUX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwazAg2UJvGAr+nx8R_xEbc4xV0ttPEWFKUD69u6xXaMhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaMzy=qeW5XYZ_txPaiYE27Oof+C5V1uRANvv-_cayOcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR00MB0107389F8FE73F140849A19996BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <2736ea21-69e6-83b1-3b59-377c032290b5@dcrocker.net> <CY1PR00MB01072F4EB32969888104C45196BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CAL0qLwbdNVwT-xiCmxyhSqKcp4-hCA1COHKh0wdYrYEekzZ=XA@mail.gmail.com> <3009defcc6dc9043823618dbc338460d@xmail.mwn.de> <CY1PR00MB0107C2A78F65F65ED68920A796BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <582DBEF5.5010101@isdg.net> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05267A9A03@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05267A9A03@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/R_eFPirDhCZl77J4Kew2TejpdO8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Nov 2016 23:05:09 -0000
On 11/17/2016 9:34 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: >> >> For exclusive policies (SPF -ALL), you really don't need DKIM, DMARC or ARC >> for that matter since the receiver (at least ours) will never accept the payload >> anyway, i.e. it never gets to the SMTP "DATA" >> state. SPF does not require you to accept the mail for the hard reject policy >> (-ALL). >> > > Hector, the reality is that most mailbox providers do not reject on SPF -all because so many senders don't understand what they are "saying" with -all and the mailbox providers are the ones who get the complaints about mail not getting delivered. THAT is reality. > Is "MOST" 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 51%? The fact is there are receivers that do reject on -ALL. Its doesn't matter if its 1%. The specs has always allowed to be done and it is done. That's the reality. All systems need to be ready to handle that situation. The payload isn't even transferred. In the 13 years implementing it, I can't even recall one false positive. Another point is that many domains have switched their early SoftFail or Neutral setup to Hardfail for the primary purpose of rejection despite how a receiver will actually do rejection. A good majority of high value domains are Hard Fails and have been for a number of years. I just don't buy that the notion that senders don't know what they are doing. In any case, my main point is that if you use SPF -ALL, you can bypass lots of unnecessary overhead processing in DKIM/DMARC or any related payload technology. -- HLS
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Paul Rock
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… ned+dmarc
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Vladimir Dubrovin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Rolf E. Sonneveld
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… John R Levine
- [dmarc-ietf] DKIM ONLY PLEASE! (was: Re: [ietf-dk… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Vladimir Dubrovin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Terry Zink
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Terry Zink
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Michael Storz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Terry Zink
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Vladimir Dubrovin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less klud… Scott Kitterman