IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 703253A0B3D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 o-JmU7KrDUwu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 769363A0B37 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com with SMTP id v3so3824475vkb.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cjpnjk2P5LcQ6q/2RZf7zevforwhix1jay8k6yVJrzY=; b=Pengn0oY2+jI63v7XYsXVemTEoV7q82N2trss6oMbtKGRTu0q0my/CouocoSSuX1jo 5bT1BNIAdxHv2at3xhgW3BBQG6C+XzCBI0PIXC+eNmxdM1w1MbtznEW9OLwp0D72LdTy f14fKK04wfSqY+2Ykj2mL66zQ9rHHPmLZR3KniXlhPqqkkMTZu5sj2xo28y0UtXlrA0b EbOE8ShXwkQhpA7uYCKidoCb/uuBm5AJQ15A8jTe7HVSpBjN48G9P5IPdGM+9MwfIMoA br+ZmZ4JmCVdOctwz7NrgBPl2RX1PUsLem2JcMfG5oByxRkk374mTRqHgAVaJlFP0Gqb osIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cjpnjk2P5LcQ6q/2RZf7zevforwhix1jay8k6yVJrzY=; b=sIXGABN5Tt041GxPLH0mlS5cbwxjcNfhqgFfKhPLDbG3XiihkEsuctuMGGYyh1qhJy 60k2+fOoXy0cgsqtPm5gNiCoo7VJ25ZRmuCvwD/g0Y/2TvE7W7Kj0src0NxVK8vzj2Ds A5IyrX5wT5wQ2fVlqIcLEdOq3qWSL6Tm6Si0jVbIbqGWgJRXi6hr/hI1I2BYBw2Uy25N j0i4arorGCKzblTCSLyYHkNFk/s4kP15PC0sxeAjMpcYfSYoWPkmKD9htw99brvCBzTX KzOkL1+wSt1n5ohyMAIbv2ijspqhIbxsJ5KZPAUd63KjPcmxLLFDQ+6ZQ6XGL6bdrCo5 X2jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wBPASU4fqfB5W1xS53t3nQhSrzf3M1cohHfFk8A9tc6wDKH8Y ZuTm9Nc+JB/QB6gHI529ws8Yy2oNrSFApTeuUyEkZQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHLE+cfZqphTX+In6z7qE527AA+OTl5EhjWIs+uOYZFxPxmSy6uE+fuGsEEybKc0nR7KiVDvrTlgmQ6K0yonY=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:dac7:: with SMTP id r190mr35989722vkg.22.1609353283342; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it> <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com> <72e20c17-e991-e82a-9120-a27097e3ac58@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=6huc-N4ymDTOWZXHGjQQ-3RFDdomRzmGp4kOseHckMQ@mail.gmail.com> <7863d250-f56a-1fe1-44ee-fbc7486d48b4@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdMdaE92UOrXvcAqm2iou+PCGg_uzHUsmBsYRe1PivBJw@mail.gmail.com> <502c2363-385c-b90c-a22a-716594967190@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdP1bedYv+3MK3vrirfr5CTGvpiOxSO-zZ=9q7=Up9p0g@mail.gmail.com> <01fe63df-1960-868a-3351-08a24bb7a9cf@tana.it> <8e1d6a24-17f4-1fa8-d90a-883e3b8e7432@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfO9SEo3yFcFj5tqgBCzx=+_E23=7E8OvZ6J17aKq6ymhg@mail.gmail.com> <6ef89421-4656-143c-c998-2f167be6c302@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ef89421-4656-143c-c998-2f167be6c302@mtcc.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:34:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfPA_V0oDBHtMOw4edRPYxubUzsRHxXoiOYHQC1CP1tBXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5dbe105b7b2c290"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Vfq3vBZLb4K5pqkpXRWKMbEAUJY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 18:34:50 -0000

Yes, put whatever you think is appropriate in the ticket, including a link
from the dmarc archive to this thread, so that when it is reopened the
group has appropriate context

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:31 Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

> I'll try to propose some text for the ones that would require
> modifications in the ticket. I assume that is appropriate?
>
> Mike
> On 12/30/20 10:29 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
>
> Thank you filing these tickets.
>
> With regards to which tickets are actively open, I’ve asked the document
> editors to push on open tickets, stand by.
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:21 Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12/30/20 10:13 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> > On Wed 30/Dec/2020 17:38:29 +0100 Dotzero wrote:
>> >> And for the second time, that is not a DMARC problem, it is an
>> >> auth-res problem.
>> >
>> >
>> > Standardizing the result names for dmarc authentication method is an
>> > integral part of DMARC specification.
>> >
>> > Added ticket 91
>> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/91
>> >
>> I opened a ticket too which basically says that there should be a
>> normative Authentication-Results Requirements section in the base
>> specifications. That was a process error from the very beginning with
>> auth-res and its weird semi-official status. I don't think it has ever
>> been discussed whether it is even a protocol or not as Ned brought up
>> (opened a ticket on that too).
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
> --
> *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
> *e:* seth@valimail.com
> *p:* 415.273.8818
>
>
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
> this email and then delete it from your system.
>
> --

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* seth@valimail.com
*p:* 415.273.8818


This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email