IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 10 June 2023 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 3F875C151076 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="TxoNVKwn"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="Ax7ibSpF"
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 6HWZFa6wHbFM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E92E8C14CE2B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1686418463; bh=ZncQaCbxaO32HvFOZ2tlibdOFZ5hFHJrg1BST74fors=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=TxoNVKwnmXnTqZoyGS6IOTetGN7f49kRUeEIdUthsqwdkCfL6mQWagtVWnLL8FRWG tv995EFOjukx5soMK9pAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1686418463; bh=ZncQaCbxaO32HvFOZ2tlibdOFZ5hFHJrg1BST74fors=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Ax7ibSpFtyloTDT4bqmP5qXdeBl3WjdQmix6cWosQHTWZ31s0SJVCrk35x+YubUri WmgbWkNMUB8EwjwTBwbX5fyESoTNueaGnrRGub1CJC9wppCyeqT9JoM9l+mYcscszL 2bjccjOdf7MNIkhc9a8gkxKFc6Z+yfw3GmccyGzVOZIhFWZ5zZRqweBsi6IKI
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0DF.000000006484B41F.0000301A; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 19:34:23 +0200
Message-ID: <0550f51f-caa5-d2fe-c0da-7d66a2c36367@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 19:34:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WoX3f8My1afWq3XiDycro_UijxY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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, 10 Jun 2023 17:34:38 -0000

On Fri 09/Jun/2023 17:33:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> You may not think that last half of a percent is important (my recollection is
> that it varied a bit between 0.2% and 0.8%), but I think it exists and is
> important.


I only keep one month worth of DKIM and SPF results, and got 0.52% on it right 
now, featuring large an small companies.  Surely they must be misconfigured...

Two names are twitter.com and gnupg.org.  The latter cannot be said to be 
crypto-ignorant.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email