IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C0B68C14F70C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b="qTXLFk6y"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b="IB1/7fRP"
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 Ag_lfqFXBLr1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 3463CC14F71F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6913 invoked by uid 100); 22 Mar 2024 02:52:28 -0000
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:52:28 -0000
Message-ID: <utirpc$6e0$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=1af965fcf26c.k2403; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=EvsY7sPLoBJikHI7eYsTKU+C70N+x4h1wxGtsz3Psio=; b=qTXLFk6yOsaLIu6+1fp65WUcBYLk0eCEeqbl/hzjad+wkfzFOqJuvlYxwVgBf50/RFOY3FL+jwNmG4C2LEmQhfeACbLGweW2Z3vDB1JjE2vY6fWYA9tdvR/Az+C+CnmOCmsmjSFXg4YNPZV1KSOYuMppDKmLZLVG3vBfzWUe08m5phFed90p8OO6MAMJUQRwPc3MugaeFQi5CBiart9JDJjIlkuzAkxtJg/QQq92Jqu9cKnWk8/UFAKntOR6kUaLMjiQUNrFIJY+fHzHZ6WAOUnlrdtu+nnEQaUBgI0kxqrDdKyo4xRGkvx+O8YuRuxvKC494GPMcj8PHlsPTTHHTA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=1af965fcf26c.k2403; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=EvsY7sPLoBJikHI7eYsTKU+C70N+x4h1wxGtsz3Psio=; b=IB1/7fRPNIJZ1mcv0MYk8Zvm5V5M9D/jU+pRWngeZ3utXpwE8FT2/fFBtSalDMPhBiJh+GOGHBiiN/ADn0rN0FqQsG2pB/Tnd3M/OoHZ1+dn/9WZVgL0MO1SN0tueAsPrRzgGmD1E7FG5SoL2+ycDE/deJRDwK8qzYvy5iuNlAtHkbr3FyESqdTIDQZ7XGQi7B+SZRlXgQh4SwYTViPYHbJkG8FMlwHwQgXowuaSFsw/SlH4L2nFvUCnPjEMKfWL+HNKICnCmaJo78Kcbi2lOJYYq3Mchzb0dou2gNlNnt1QopPLChk7BS9+zXpYqt8fgYOrdpVQfDhE+gCX6qBe/Q==
Organization: Taughannock Networks
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <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>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UHj2EQnetpiDa5liHy81cLQ5qSQ>
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 02:52:39 -0000

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.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email