Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC questions

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Mon, 23 November 2020 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 493DC3A064E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 2hwLdrxtb1Va for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (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 D60153A0644 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id k12so6040551uae.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YhMpfSgWiwz5YwCTs4Myu+wBOJNSIrw04yPdCwBNE50=; b=cMxKGOug1nCXJ3drGDqFYlnvMFUSpHGMHze/2w3737MELTYRWM7KezWUSs+Vq+vF1r +D7gk5bjJx07vdf3+TDYLugwKW1m3qIxsfRLnTh/SRt7kxBiF4VFpc1XetMyohDg8A+I AX9LsF508IXRZCAT68RgHpW4+oSXwv78CnHmfpE3/i25ahtPuv6gDZZUlqLnHk+v05Fw FacElxE5TQoxNABMlrF1szqbsioK9Y6z8VrLXYUzSuhiVp7f5kS3nzAWc/35qt4wMxoi O57thhnWKZR5heV2DM7iPkw7Jorw4fa0x6EdLZLz1h4vkuFv9lP334XHVNAuW6HUcYMq +8KA==
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=YhMpfSgWiwz5YwCTs4Myu+wBOJNSIrw04yPdCwBNE50=; b=S4Yj1VXH1o36dymzyI67w0apGGfAHnKp8U4pv5PkDBSy4hy9M9ype4rABmdn+tt/D9 8F5/9basGnrYvvz19zmu/FJiqQafm+qVm9T1I8fWcZzyvyrQ6uSpxdYXifWWMZ12ECye 8RRomY6gWnteYMlmKZZW/HVO5fD/clJ8iFQRcplr+4NNS6UMSwJ21lEsCJXYzJjAFr3H mhzRsoKygZaazxttW4jQqwqQgdACxhvnbD1dirniVdfGV3x6LwDNY61/CcJ0MLn6M9c4 KwKoIRPO6/QyfM4no286Z3LDtV+vjRCK9KQcH/+1wMz0SBoXw+4IuoBBp+6mFVA06zG/ Hr6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531R072tp+dkKwKxN4dNvhSMHtQanBXAAqu3+vW7aOWyCAdDLMXN DvwezR31Yl6jltBxhjJGQHOce7H9nkJpUx/dlziW
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw52ezHtjJqWB+TETPCRXjDoOLrdyfMJSDWhdWgUxKy9vCc38UCsEhiQEswF+AQ1JL8uTWuoTMS1ozgfaM0jWA=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:3b01:: with SMTP id n1mr1390313uaw.6.1606161554503; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <dcc265f9-a143-5093-eba0-94ee059c7cc7@mtcc.com> <20201122021417.B5E6E27B3E59@ary.qy> <CABuGu1pX=5ZC4RLsv19qrosRN9nCrPdeSk5Xg4O7ViEZit6dnA@mail.gmail.com> <453c4db4-fc62-dc76-5b15-707623d66f9f@mtcc.com> <64f18b-ae8-8c15-3d33-ff2d864c35bc@taugh.com> <884541e6-5076-7f8f-d1d2-d68ea9c5a2bc@mtcc.com> <8fa2d88c-55df-aa8e-932f-8f7bc97d741@taugh.com> <77854271-296a-b4f6-202e-c085036289d4@mtcc.com> <feac41f-6144-2e21-c3fa-2b7770bfeefc@taugh.com> <30ecfcdf-a90a-7e1d-8241-64df3332089f@mtcc.com> <CABa8R6tQmaLRQe459=2qAEvJNY6_n_NK1DRxve4dwjy6DFuD0g@mail.gmail.com> <d1aa8f35-a7d7-fa01-a5c4-0eca07df0fd9@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1aa8f35-a7d7-fa01-a5c4-0eca07df0fd9@mtcc.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:59:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uoJxXOz+YvfxDcvcn3MxrGiu5uYB0wkAY4uaZwDER3sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e8e81d05b4cba0ab"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WPkLWnyysZs6xAaIVF9SvKPqN64>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC questions
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:59:17 -0000

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:55 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 11/23/20 11:49 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> I imagine that the vast majority of intermediaries that break signatures
>> number exactly one extra domain, so it's not very hard to reconstruct
>> the chain of custody from origin to destination. Assuming the
>> intermediary resigns with the incoming auth-res, the destination can
>> choose to believe that auth-res or not, right? Since this is an
>> experiment, do we have an idea of what the rest of the problem is after
>> the typical mailing list-like signature breakers are excluded?
>>
>
> No, as in the RFC says to remove them, so it's a standard part of
> implementation.
>
> RFC 7601 4.1:
>
>> instances of the header field that appear to originate within the ADMD but
>
> are actually added by foreign MTAs will be removed before delivery.
>
>
> That's very different than "just maybe it might be removed"
>
> The receiving MTA in the next domain doesn't have to discard the
> information before removing it. The act of removing it is so there isn't
> confusion about the ultimate auth-res, especially with MUA's. The incoming
> MTA is free to consider the previous auth-res just like it's free to
> consider the previous arc auth-res.
>
Which works for one hop.

Brandon