IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 135 - What To Say About Too-Permissive/Third-Party SPF and Where To Say It?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 17 March 2024 16:05 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 E763FC14F5EB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.859 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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="AxS2a2Dd"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="TaxtSI68"
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 oX94ZZ91ZZxH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:05:07 -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 CB135C14F5EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36652 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2024 16:05:04 -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=8f2a65f714b0.k2403; bh=TAPqgU5dJddUvHHLCEjgJRVrDZJOgPCaO3F0ZwHetlI=; b=AxS2a2Dd+DZHz0PXRtdU03nTBdakwQtVUVWfOql5j/jTuq3FNeEr7k95eH4f6FEcpiHwc6gdoTK2YCVCu0pYqHcXBPuRK3UdJWvB8tXUEwDohHLM1bVzxwopFIBXY6bwecOPe/RitAz3WIUAE8uIHLUtxWkc41Ks3sKwUFXgS8u/DILRus+9glSpcZljtodWq+x/lp0KbzZ/jYJYUkjZ3/knsOSR0tThLLzMjn4JD9y5djmrRGVvRFawPZqNjbGNoF3GwzDMDse5z2hImsfmSz1lgnqS3WsnMkya3KPHV6lXsk8tqY9uYB4jX+QymB6CKvQYAiF1xzmRVhMa2T+MXg==
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=8f2a65f714b0.k2403; bh=TAPqgU5dJddUvHHLCEjgJRVrDZJOgPCaO3F0ZwHetlI=; b=TaxtSI68cCQa4SiDvQMuxv/IgAN2a35K0c3rDrq9mn7TyVY7vgalqpqXhcrL/5LfHHI1L1q6YgBxciKWI+LnL8YX5Sz1U3MW5JNwxb9cMLKLUanzxHvbB5LGSJ0Tqkr6Kyv4VKNxw8CFmsza9e5CJi7ghJXHWuy6QuqAlkx3E5dG+5N8dzXUKDITOPPW/fPR/w+MBdyb8z44bnv1IyidRZqSlh4v9bSu1hQS6zIv8kOgP0CrE2YOeg9QJryDWYDDPPutdo11Yv0dMj1hpiemLQFyYg1fYsd2xehZH2KD2oCWF3DwRYJCjPQse03YowABcxoJ3+vXLSj8w7WfwCjoDg==
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; 17 Mar 2024 16:05:03 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 69B0F858A541; Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:05:03 -0400
Message-Id: <20240317160503.69B0F858A541@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <D3C7E666-5AB3-4E87-B83A-F909E3389039@kitterman.com>
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/VFPl6nMq3SnAgOst81llwAQZ3xs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 135 - What To Say About Too-Permissive/Third-Party SPF and Where To Say It?
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: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:05:12 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>1.  Bad mail gets DMARC pass and so DMARC policy is not applied (avoid consequences of DMARC fail).
>
>2.  Bad mail gets DMARC pass and something else (e.g. BIMI) does a wrong thing (gets benefits of DMARC pass).

I agree these are the two main points.  Will see if I can boil the text down somewhat.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email