IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 8FA293A080C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 1SOX99e9fx8o for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 1F0603A080A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id r13so2398361iln.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Oa3qMRn93CmD6boH8BBeWLs+Rej05JK0zTIeBhyhEig=; b=b3kYpoaZ9v3/DiJvD91sovWQkrNWEgWXLsdnc7Lgs3aD+ojBqEPFKQuV8mIhvrOniB 6b+k1Ot/NAp0ONn56G88UvuM40Zpt2dfbygiSAKqoctqpZqhQm9GsF08K7leRdTkIkcy 0slsCxeMkLWM+/eDgN/OgMfJO/5OCWeoh9eBo=
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=Oa3qMRn93CmD6boH8BBeWLs+Rej05JK0zTIeBhyhEig=; b=LAWOkJ4HO2x0e41t9kMYfoL8j7d4RxntwvED9xVpz5u7Y0oslkjpc8Mee87sESqcX6 pSgsm9wN4qYS7po1H6+8neKvOpS7/K0v78Afzvm5os6FQ3nebd3CqNrjsTENTYeHioHJ 527SC031ph80ASvEYZtqcUZ+g/qj9xyUmuFCIurDph8jj2yItEakxdk089O4FbPusbQ8 AOj2yYjsgDnncG5D2GGmqioCRN9yZVYIno0cBkEWTU3ixGqGa4522sQweiWIw7YQHaUk cSIEYxFqq0h4C6sJI/gmB231xA2qXupCKqKciljcpQZhAnSLiktrWoBhDXvAZCSAWZRl SHwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532goky+MOo8hI3DhUM1/abWVTpq+dHECdz2YocXksFyLcTlv7/W IYskbNNEL6IiD56Z9aOrZppU57Z7DtUNqtlyEjyuXveOnWc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0N+aFaY77cZnMAKfmbvYvU+HUA2n2pInsfUrbCPLuiGYsSNH8IyK8u9FZbNXIOR+zHZLt2gVfZAmpw9Vi+1c=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d651:: with SMTP id x17mr6507522ilp.23.1597354978430; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200811034740.BA1831E7FDBF@ary.local> <0c8afc68-bc51-702a-c794-610b2d355836@dcrocker.net> <83a8e95f-d85d-634e-0c93-eb2ddab2c69d@wordtothewise.com> <99810a58-3809-bfd2-3571-bac54430f9e8@tana.it> <CAOPP4WHWoVkA+ZWZ+2AFnH8_nKBxO+t3Z4trz347JV0fsEy83Q@mail.gmail.com> <003501d671b9$467c0670$d3741350$@bayviewphysicians.com>
In-Reply-To: <003501d671b9$467c0670$d3741350$@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:42:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1rhusgtqJd4k7XQBMaEnRkdxF8O_FTuYccEcwoKYjL4tQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Foster <fosterd=40bayviewphysicians.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011e5fb05acc93067"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XmwJg6LwohzkAcCIeMk7yuk9vrc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?
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: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 21:43:01 -0000

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:33 PM Doug Foster <fosterd=
40bayviewphysicians.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> The current DMARC architecture supports authorizing a vendor to mail on
> behalf of their clients if the client includes them in their SPF policy or
> delegates a DKIM scope to them and they use it.
>
>
>
> I agree that SPF is too limiting (including hard limits on complexity),
> and DKIM is too complex for an uncooperative vendor.
>
>
>
> In most cases, a solution would be a controlled third-party signature
> authorization along the lines of RFC 6541.
>
> The client would configure the authorization in his own DNS and the and
> the vendor would only need to sign with their own DKIM signature.
>

If "DKIM is too complex for [this] uncooperative vendor", why would having
the "vendor...sign with...DKIM" be workable?

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email