IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 A60823A0825 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:48:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 FbnZ2RV4N-sY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:48:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (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 8A4563A0803 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:48:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id j13so3875632pjz.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:48:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=2hlnBE3AFODycG+Cq96LfcGh2WrhA45Zcu0lxOtFSl0=; b=J4B9e5WHNCtkIluPbzclBRn5nDSGMKPrapsyw7w0MDRCPRrdg0c336xRV4jAPo+a3J J03/mFRNA3dXxxA76R+TIoE91grFU9uObvbSGXjDF8GHQnBoLLE99Lbl03xx/fMn7TR0 W4k8P/sZpEbNaKb7yDLfh1LO4//amO1YEHMcir0Vp4FCKVtLlIauRBP+DQuHbCtZSQUj wCiO7X6cQcZGpVhzFn/dH3Nbg4MwBlQ0Tfok2YD7t+N/kyuS3gr0jM99MYUJ9PQ68YSP gRYuYnYecO7L80xthcXPWoW3vGi85ZZQo+I/Fq1koxC5jI1ZnzHvD74focPnFEgPTwhU k+sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=2hlnBE3AFODycG+Cq96LfcGh2WrhA45Zcu0lxOtFSl0=; b=tvWpRfYSiSB1QBlsjsPeHQ1EawIDdrp+lQX9x97E9wceAY1tD6pJG6Kjqr2tMYWjSV CVFB+b9yXVREOxKnd8qHMsWcZPONrO+kshmKe/IMrCR21oRaobWZCuvRc+GDVE80kAod 0xSJ4meSVVQJH+4wa+kmN1qiwxuy/bQo6rkxycFreYSRyKzhyKGAa71YEbpCADVj0d+y WXxpMYZFc3HiTpVD7bbfKlGbtb35RFkBKiP1zf/Krvb3XX/HVW5VVnIDPBKHWlZCyg09 CIdxH8DOOHLQQ/EJ2vNzc+lwK98DqELkBfbz4uES/H5f8ndt7zkLGeRKi39KBa06Z3Um 96HQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/PF1DXXgLyz45aX3SETO2O3JyhpIBUBWolETJ75HzkxVTRnO8 ekyYkd5Gkw0/6SFP+XvbWEL8/Uu/eB1pxA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyancqomndae6/KMN8TKJnHLaVttHGIbJeYhEj/MpUhBbgTjZqK5vAgjOgcbcGqoPDBhPJH6g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bd8d:b029:da:fcd1:664 with SMTP id q13-20020a170902bd8db02900dafcd10664mr54206766pls.30.1609343279457; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-45-95.volcanocom.com. [107.182.45.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a131sm37653630pfd.171.2020.12.30.07.47.58 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:47:58 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8m0OWsTt+tcSgUh+Fxu=HH_57nsb2O1Q_fgA2453ceh4g@mail.gmail.com> <140485eb-020f-4406-3f2f-e2c475ea51e5@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mApfoF2ORgL+DoYTanrdhMjvT9H27kORwLKCQc1C9sRw@mail.gmail.com> <5588dbbe-b876-ed80-c80f-792380e3718f@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=kW_t_JkOxUud1Uz8+PrbMh5CfwfxZK=mhe0wjW8wQpw@mail.gmail.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> <9c5f18c2-c5f6-4f66-a185-f684949738b5@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mDb6MQk8y2mZZC6d4AD7Zi8xJDsbDn2=FoD+Bx-wVAkg@mail.gmail.com> <326d993e-0d92-206b-dd94-bef21ddfbaaa@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=Gaou-Mb1vkwxABXLt7a_de03EVgPdyjZTdjR_+7DrrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <06474cf1-105a-b6fb-a7b5-de6f7dff761d@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 07:47:57 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=Gaou-Mb1vkwxABXLt7a_de03EVgPdyjZTdjR_+7DrrA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------198B8C2BAD158792C6FE1B97"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XkWm2PVF0J2ftgCdjxJTtuPXA4Y>
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 15:48:02 -0000

On 12/30/20 7:40 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
> I already said there is a thunderbird extension called dkim-verify 
> that does exactly that. It says "DMARC: fail". That is highly 
> misleading to the user.
>
>
> I see.
>
> I wrote "MDAs and local clients (web and mobile) at the mailbox 
> provider",  and I was referring to things such as Gmail's web client, 
> Gmail's mobile client, etc.
>
> You are talking about an extension for Thunderbird, which is different 
> from what I'm talking about.
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
This would be a problem for any MUA. That's the point. It's not 
different, it's the exact same problem for every MUA. There is no 
normative mechanism that gives anything downstream from the DMARC check 
producing the auth-res to be able to use that information correctly. And 
we sure don't want billions of MUA's doing DMARC checks on their own 
because of the inadequacy of auth-res. There is code in that extension 
to do exactly that. If that were widespread, it would be disastrous.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email