IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 06 April 2024 20:40 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 2DCB8C14F601 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="oXdumqQ9"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="1QLXyOC3"
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 ceLZcHCa81sx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:40:07 -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 7BBF1C14F5F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 74340 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2024 20:40:05 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1225c6611b325.k2404; bh=CKGygxFaE9iP9byQfZtWQ8nX6vqI/H3ICtKpFJQ9yIA=; b=oXdumqQ9LIjChDb4B3Ysdubw+dmpGUuK3TtH95ZxbLdOpujjadB0ufaAKJlCJLOwmHQd2YubjWw7JVHj80VNTJGKo4ulfmUdredI4XB4E3AqPPUVzdtTdj3Nu2MAU826SXad6rH6dRdVrNyCqjLtlr1kW4Fi7aopvSYi/R2gj/+bjlPiM5rYF2E6ddDvsBkPgIivJb9lGHvNRZ1yKfyB7TkcEksT4cpQhHe1GXqWrVUm4VNTSWg3bo/8ix7ooDRfpqmNPJSi0YWM/BNFa/1uYriJvqa1UUM5ZFFnFetWDnTASDu++ax1ZSZFMsmC2pkAioZRNWkUGbsIG+69Y7d/Uw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1225c6611b325.k2404; bh=CKGygxFaE9iP9byQfZtWQ8nX6vqI/H3ICtKpFJQ9yIA=; b=1QLXyOC3tox4eZxOr6ffg2yDgO0n1wYHSVdag3uZt3254Q5g1AWF9P7WY2LqKISMuH05rJuvmPmQgoa+hLFKzSqepCjDGEbN82qjpd9BrNkDr93XnXqVqvqkvVuvGAvxwojROqxlGJ4HFyjN3MwPHv33Pvh9X6/d5bXQhRDoCpdz8wX5eDUFt8J+lQJkf1yMso8todtwOPzTfl0pzaHaRRlPq7CiIJRN15T7I0LWqcF+wEioK6Rx+n2qogRaZb4lZSJsaImo0mtO6PAGWEB5m/Jqtn3C7BivJiQQxgoanuB5WwiM5IoeB2nutdGT+Q2IanYc2tvbMWKYFyrEufR4AQ==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Apr 2024 20:40:04 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 348F78701D5A; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:40:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 16:40:03 -0400
Message-Id: <20240406204004.348F78701D5A@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <10772164.eV7dEhVGUO@zini-1880>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/VCYbm6PIeECaJssuP1axhZo8D5w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all
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: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:40:13 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>I hear you.  Your operational issue is my system working as designed.  DMARC 
>works on top of SPF, it doesn't change it.  
>
>Anything like this belongs in an operational guidance document, not in the 
>protocol description.  I have no problem describing the trade offs in an 
>appropriate document, but I don't think this is it.

I agree.  "Don't do stupid stuff" goes in an A/S, not in the spec.

I entirely believe people are confused about SPF, but they're confused
about everything. A few days ago on the generally clueful NANOG list
we had to explain to someone that rejecting mail if DKIM signatures
don't verify is not a good idea.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email