IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 21 August 2018 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 20F51130EF6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 V1iQ0gCCtefE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3394A128B14 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 33743 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2018 14:46:02 -0000
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 21 Aug 2018 14:46:02 -0000
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:46:01 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1808211038340.52375@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qUc_vxw06i=M=-fFi6rogpHkjMckWN+d_DXK-ZcPaaVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuGu1qZY2PtLJG+A-1aHDKiKY_1VHRPZ5aNJ1ans4pHnczrzQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180821021844.1DE842003B88CA@ary.qy> <CABuGu1qUc_vxw06i=M=-fFi6rogpHkjMckWN+d_DXK-ZcPaaVQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WQz1hyCojJZclKPIHllpUQWRSrE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC ARC-16 concern on Section 5.1.2 - cv=fail should sign greedily
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 21 Aug 2018 14:46:06 -0000

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> No, by subsequent I mean intermediaries who handle the message after the
> point of initial "oh, this is broken" determination. So if I'm the 5th
> intermediary (let's assume that all are ARC participating for this
> discussion), and the chain on the message that I receive does not pass the
> validation checks (for any of the three possible reasons), then my report
> is meaningful to the sender but reports from 6, 7, 8, etc are not.

Ah, that.  You're right.  One the chain is broken, we have no idea where 
the message came from and it's just another bit of spam bouncing around 
the net.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email