Re: [dmarc-ietf] Implementing psddmarc

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 27 September 2019 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 B97C3120805 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 UI3zMrOl_MR8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EACCE120801 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1569583205; bh=Eb4vTrqeHITysa/iH0cBlmIlSuHkXuspv1w5u7SeF5Y=; l=1697; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Da5gcI/S5aXdk3h1F9SFHEnqpsGDwor98sOk7Ii/xYtl81KkZt8L+RB4j473p41Z4 BrX3RLXCLuooeIZjLFY3475ATXsqECCfbW6PwsapDG/Lftco168Hq8iRSXYgusfki/ BLszNTsxNE0HjamoEjyzZ5WHX+pDzpb7fOs+aZUq5pMNp75Ew2rdWkvYLfzR0
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([5.170.70.162]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC056.000000005D8DF064.00003CDE; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:20:04 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <4103172c-108a-e146-b660-d7a72e24a42b@tana.it> <9571084.N2IzJBRSXg@l5580>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <ea805154-b1a3-2383-7a05-5b07bd77930c@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:19:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9571084.N2IzJBRSXg@l5580>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TI2TKWXn72tDSo3UO_PNC2WNz9k>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Implementing psddmarc
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:20:10 -0000

On Wed 25/Sep/2019 23:23:04 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:16:08 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I added psddmarc to the latest zdkimfilter.
>>
>> After some thought, I chose to use and distribute a file like the one
>> attached.  Two reasons for doing so are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Avoid to invent yet another file format, specifying header line, initial
>> dot, comments, and the like.
>>
>> 2. Reuse the library calls already available for parsing and searching the
>> PSL.
>>
>> On the second call, the software passes the organizational domain resulting
>> from the first call, and thus retrieves the "super organizational" domain,
>> if any.  The file only contains the domain from psddmarc.org registry which
>> actually sports a DMARC record.  While the experiment is ongoing, the file
>> will have to be updated.
>>
>> It would be convenient, if more implementations will find the above reasons
>> convincing, if such a list would be maintained and distributed by
>> psddmarc.org along with (or instead of) the csv format.  After all, since
>> this list extends the PSL, keeping the same format may make some sense.
> 
> I think we should include this in the options for the experiment about how to 
> keep track of which PSDs are doing PSD DMARC.
> 
> Can you provide what you'd like me to add about your implementation for 
> Appendix C?


If needed, a short characterization can be as follows:

    The zdkimfilter module is a separately available add-on to
    Courier-MTA.

    Mostly used for DKIM signing, it can be configured to also
    verify, apply DMARC policies, and send aggregate reports.


Best
Ale
--