Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 28 June 2023 19:44 UTC
Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 CFCA5C14CE51 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=kitterman.com header.b="M4WB8x97"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="B7PavoOD"
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 5ywpHwP0ztkY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (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 E57B2C14CE2B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D148F802C8; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1687981438; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=SxjbDdSZkMLtOV2x/uh2YsXxJZcten7LEcq+5WoS2nI=; b=M4WB8x97v2Bi1G7cLVCmuYsE243xXqSl+AWJ474bN9SdtT29CbFTmo34fN7v/qpfcU0NJ 9gXRkbVL/iLoP+LDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1687981438; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=SxjbDdSZkMLtOV2x/uh2YsXxJZcten7LEcq+5WoS2nI=; b=B7PavoODRpZUkyY+L1J8quzqt19vOaehjEge/kwE2DDPy+8vP6aic7HMMR18Iln1IrWkP ymfCepv43f4CwOsq3J4wj9U3uHmmyvFd+oEu9K/UkSa1E+1/i1Uq3cqiDKjgt2YJZGrBSm9 WgPuSr2s8WdPZLlcmkEXBzLW4A3UFVEAzzoHIGPJgq+BCa/Zlgks8DRlO+rJ4urN/iPYmk+ ZPlmteIhcLnOdepjnwZCkGVTp8Ib+ReGCNC4YEfj2mtNmTatix02qO0bYkVIhMJUFVnwbyu HiSHWEK+gCWNEG2zgEow1K84MzChJrNY80N4cIiwBPpgMiN28jnGkVLdVJ+A==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 613E0F8017C; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 19:43:49 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLtUtKNtP4__pOryFLaAODjiEx-nbdvF9tL6wYhcRCe_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230623021810.E5F8DF9B3B94@ary.qy> <6495D504.4090809@isdg.net> <839aa10b-f7fa-c7a2-76db-6441189afca2@dusatko.org> <CALaySJ+gcVvpzJcrpUbOkOvjUFAhzw=pZovpZC7BhW_x7VW7nA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwasxzqJt7Hr7gZd86C=ivCrDUci_i6pkJJUTnqzL1pHMA@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+gjR6D-OSE_07iSH2zXa7wypUQwPN1cL-1s+NC2S4L8g@mail.gmail.com> <99e1ef2d-053b-8cfe-f369-fa8475d142ae@tana.it> <CALaySJKZoAPTT-+cZEww+y2eUsDbNXcybb=Z7RxNLyfzPMr7ng@mail.gmail.com> <d3986316-02f9-9d73-be81-37af7cfd40a7@tana.it> <CALaySJLtUtKNtP4__pOryFLaAODjiEx-nbdvF9tL6wYhcRCe_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <877A1137-3A55-424A-A9C5-FCCA4F2D5436@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XZKZWJ6dO0qanof037ypwUKWCTg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, 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: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 19:44:25 -0000
I think it's quite relevant. The assumption that this is based on is there's a need to specify because SPF data is not reliable enough for everyone. If that premise is correct (I don't agree with it, but it's a separate issue), then I think telling people that they should use DKIM because it IS reliable, when it's got its own issues isn't a great idea. I've been mulling this whole topic over and I think I'm close to having mulled it enough to have a useful proposal. SPF bad, DKIM good is a gross over-simplification, but so is if it passed SPF, it's authorized, so go whine at the provider. Scott K On June 28, 2023 6:32:41 PM UTC, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: >I think DKIM replay is largely irrelevant to this discussion (about >the sender specifying which authentication to use), because if that's >your biggest concern with respect to DMARC, then "SPF only" is the >answer. "SPF *and* DKIM" is not any better than that. > >> You seem to imply that auth=dkim+spf wouldn't be effective against DKIM reply > >(Assuming you mean "replay".) "SPF and DKIM" does not give any >benefit beyond "SPF only" in this case. > >Look, either SPF fails because the message was relayed illegitimately... >...or SPF passes because the replayer used the sender's legitimate >infrastructure to do the replay. > >Barry > >On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:43 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: >> >> Thank you for your analysis. However, it doesn't touch on DKIM replay. >> >> I know this topic belongs to the other list. Let me briefly recall it, if this >> doesn't take too many cycles from core matters: It occurs when a signed >> message is replayed by unauthorized hosts to recipients which were not >> originally addressed. So, it is one case of your 3rd proposition: In some >> scenarios, DKIM will pass when SPF fails. >> >> You say that it is technically unnecessary to test both because DKIM should >> always pass when SPF passes (1st proposition). >> >> You claim: >> > But where the harm comes is in cases of mis-configuration, because now if >> > *either* of them is misconfigured, the whole thing fails -- neither of them >> > serves as a backup for the other; instead, the misconfiguration of either >> > one causes deliverability problems. >> >> >> I agree. But what if SPF and DKIM are both configured properly? You seem to >> imply that auth=dkim+spf wouldn't be effective against DKIM reply, but your >> analysis doesn't cover that case explicitly. >> >> Perhaps there are better ways to counter that specific problem, and certainly >> it's not what this WG is tasked to do. But, just to make the point, I think >> it's interesting to know. >> >> >> Best >> Ale >> >> >> On Tue 27/Jun/2023 16:24:21 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: >> > I don't understand how most of your message fits into this discussion: >> > you're comparing SPF's policy points with DMARC policy. we're talking >> > about SPF as an authentication mechanism together with DKIM (not >> > DMARC) as an authentication mechanism... and then using those >> > authentication results in DMARC policy evaluation. >> > >> > But here: I've said all this before in separate places, so I'll put it >> > in one place, here, one more time: >> > >> > Given that SPF and DKIM are both configured properly: >> > 1. If SPF passes, DKIM will always pass. >> > 2. If DKIM fails, SPF will always fail. >> > 3. In some scenarios, DKIM will pass when SPF fails. >> > >> > Therefore, when everything is configured properly, SPF adds no value >> > beyond what DKIM does, and DKIM does add value beyond what SPF does. >> > That's why I am (and others are) arguing that we should remove SPF >> > *from DMARC evaluation*. There's no argument that for now, or some, >> > SPF outside of DMARC still has value. >> > >> > What others are arguing is that in the real world, things do get >> > mis-configured, and if DKIM is misconfigured and fails when it >> > shouldn't, SPF adds value by providing a working authentication. >> > (And, of course, similarly the other way around, plus DKIM covers some >> > cases when messages are relayed or forwarded.) That speaks for "SPF >> > *or* DKIM". >> > >> > But "SPF *and* DKIM" -- requiring *both* to pass -- is technically >> > unnecessary at best, because of (1) above: DKIM should always pass >> > when SPF passes. But where the harm comes is in cases of >> > mis-configuration, because now if *either* of them is misconfigured, >> > the whole thing fails -- neither of them serves as a backup for the >> > other; instead, the misconfiguration of either one causes >> > deliverability problems. DMARC is damaged by requiring an >> > authentication situation that is unnecessary when things are properly >> > configured, and that is more fragile than what we've been using, more >> > susceptible to configuration errors than we've seen before. >> > >> > And I'm afraid that people will use it preferentially, *thinking* that >> > it provides better "security" -- surely, double authentication is >> > better than single, no? >> > >> > No. >> > >> > Barry >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:36 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon 26/Jun/2023 20:13:53 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: >> >>> I'm saying I don't want "and" to be an option, because I think it's >> >>> damaging to DMARC. There is no reason anyone should ever want to say >> >>> that, and providing the option asks for misconfigurations because >> >>> people think it's somehow "more secure". It's not more secure. It >> >>> would be very bad for deliverability of legitimate mail and would >> >>> provide no additional security. It would be a terrible mistake. >> >> >> >> >> >> I've been sporting spf-all for years, and seldom experienced bounces, mostly >> >> due to misconfigured secondary MXes. Out of 39 domains whose posts to this >> >> list in the past year are still in my inbox, 14 have spf-all. So, while I'm >> >> not the only one, not many published -all even though it may seem to be somehow >> >> more secure. >> >> >> >> I think it can be worth to compare SPF and DMARC. Another sender policy a >> >> decade and an authentication method after. What adoption, what hype. >> >> >> >> Both policies ask receivers to reject a domain identifier in some cases. RFC >> >> 7208 explicitly suggests to consider whitelisting (Appendix D). DMARC provides >> >> for overrides but is less clear about how to handle exceptions. After SPF >> >> broke forwarding, the reaction was split between some changing identifier and >> >> turning to ~all; after DMARC broke mailing lists, between changing identifier >> >> and not altering messages. In my limited experience, the ratio seems to be >> >> higher for DMARC than SPF, but I may be wrong. >> >> >> >> In theory, domains that currently have a strict DMARC policy and spf-all, 6 of >> >> the above, should have their messages blocked when either method fails, up to >> >> changing identifiers. Why would it be so bad for deliverability to >> >> additionally require DMARC alignment, which is the difference between that and >> >> the "and"? >> >> >> >> And, it seems to me that an ESP not having a bloated SPF record could stop a >> >> good deal of DKIM replay by resorting to auth=dkim+spf. Besides collateral >> >> deliverability problems, why wouldn't that work? >> >> >> >> Wht would "and" damage DMARC more than -all damaged SPF? >> >> >> >> I hope we can discuss detailed criticism rather than vague ostracism. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Ale >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dmarc mailing list >> > dmarc@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >dmarc@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Brotman, Alex
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in the tree walk, was ver… Alessandro Vesely
- [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF Depen… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Version bump: was DMARC2 & SPF D… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] version bump to DMARC2 Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jim Fenton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Richard Clayton
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Michael Kliewe
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Patrick Ben Koetter
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Benny Pedersen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Wei Chuang
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal David Verdin
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Sebastiaan de Vos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Ken Simpson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emil Gustafsson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Florian.Kunkel
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tobias Herkula
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Emanuel Schorsch
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Barry Leiba
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Jan Dušátko
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Depend… Tero Kivinen
- [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succeeds… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal Neil Anuskiewicz
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… OLIVIER HUREAU
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Why does DKIM fail when SPF succ… Matthäus Wander