[dmarc-ietf] Prove me wrong!
Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> Tue, 15 August 2017 02:06 UTC
Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 0D8D013249D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=DrNxSJe3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HTTx+SB2
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 2A0rCXb-HBrK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E4313249F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542B320D50 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:06:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date :from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=mf1NC6Sc7OhaGhjxeIPprNkR2qgWmdcdKvVM1peZQ 14=; b=DrNxSJe3T2i7uu+bxExxvVULOTZsmvyArI7PKsM6XFX8+3sB+h+2F6iKJ 7r1kotUKxm1w63CLJYnYF6CwkhiqxHcargQfqndW0rxo0RCBLSl21CQPfwuLs64c INotd981WBc+wsljO40z4AAeI5RKvrM1KhpXAEPArUE0svK7l91SwPijt8KoUZGA ez+ytime0aY3o9gc1tR+Ny8wjAxHJPHJBY/DGLd4yHI13E+0Jcw/uwpRg9yejyJ+ WlIByXsdXhRDR1Vzn/1mRS0ckJyujTu1sfWTqahizYPQ9zUyWD0T9R92LNAXK9hK 6QemcsyojMLkX24wKxBzPDAAYOFtw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=mf1NC6Sc7OhaGhjxeIPprNkR2qgWm dcdKvVM1peZQ14=; b=HTTx+SB2Qhw4MscIl8eJQ1ieClXZXkYMamypAn+TLqT3q /8GX6HulFYrapb9Rx7K9Aycc6B1MeqriQvkKY32qoc0ee2mbN4vD00UrSPjQFlRW XuL6esnBGuD801d+fj8oho/FXfkivtxclfmXFVBq7xI6GW6GLrrNgfpfdhW2iTvV HGFpGjuGQiSVSbTd8PSKLWpjmH3Upunac0GOBK6uyh/s6RrlqjPanx1kzxRhVh1I QHi6AQK7hZ66dpCD8MV4f6qySAXlFikhnbetkK4vxEbzt3S0T6bSLgqpHptTfgJ2 AHT0n+7eJ41sQvhze2GllbP6a7Fj+IkDtTqYibxAQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:G1eSWaHx4ayrAnpTsX3TiMEHquuLbdW2GDj14iI-_6xDoPKocCxK9g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 2267E9E264; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1502762779.1086232.1073552432.22DE7E98@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_150276277910862320"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-ff6d44b3
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:06:19 +1000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UtwWftj-7Ax3yHiiE6tTe--w_jI>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Prove me wrong!
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:06:29 -0000
Seth pointed out that my emails have been long and contained many points, so I'd like to keep this really simple. I will propose two sets of headers on the same message, and I ask if anybody can find a case where the set with AS headers provides some information which is not present in the set without. Assume you are a receiver at site5.com who just received this message on your MX and are validating it. Set 1: AS: i=3; cv=pass; d=site4.com AMS: i=3; d=site4.com AAR: i=3; arc=pass (spf=fail spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=fail fromdomain=site1.com)AS; i=2; cv=pass; d=site3.com AMS: i=2; d=site3.com AAR i=2; arc=pass (spf=fail spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=site1.com)AS; i=1; cv=none; d=site2.com AMS: i=1; d=site2.com AAR i=1; arc=none (spf=pass spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=site1.com)DKIM-Signature: d=site1.com From: <foo@site1.com> Set 2: AMS: i=3; d=site4.com; h=aar:aar:aar:to:from:etc AAR: i=3; arc=pass (arcdomain=site3.com spf=fail spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=fail fromdomain=site1.com)AMS: i=2; d=site3.com; h=aar:aar:to:from:etc AAR: i=2; arc=pass (arcdomain=site2.com spf=fail spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=site1.com)AAR: i=1; arc=none (spf=pass spfdomain=site1.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=site1.com)DKIM-Signature: d=site1.com From: <foo@site1.com> In each case the AMS with i=2 and the AMS with i=3 are valid. I would love to see a case where Set 1 gives information that Set 2 doesn't, because that would prove that my understanding was incorrect. Regards, Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd brong@fastmailteam.com
- [dmarc-ietf] Prove me wrong! Bron Gondwana
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Prove me wrong! Brandon Long
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Prove me wrong! Bron Gondwana