IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 14 June 2023 12:21 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 52618C151062 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 05:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 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_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=tana.it header.b="Cca+iuTN"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="BjR0InrG"
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 Z5HSR2eH2zZA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 05:21:49 -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 41686C14CF0C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1686745302; bh=g9JpqEhXimkjFQGOAXaphqokRqZhXT7FJb1v4UicPNA=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Cca+iuTNfV0DukblX/Kz/ivZeCYJeg3jLXYO7M4VLjZ0xEsMHJ8eq4YGFQt2EmHGC 0m1JevEuMevCZp6DwKoAg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1686745302; bh=g9JpqEhXimkjFQGOAXaphqokRqZhXT7FJb1v4UicPNA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BjR0InrGjXpavOYbAbspjkZyy14P9tMq6lSw5Wp26dHpE4o06xBhbsA3sPcw3jcbg XtFf18hq3RLz7P0qHnHnn22W/BVhriIY+9V9k0RLc5Y9yWJxSVuXFL468g+E20Dq9Z qKKS8FYC19iG2djp+G+VoNBhSoXTEvHY0ZYTay1P3o3xGBnayZwLeNFoDjuz4
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Original-Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
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.000000006489B0D6.0000024A; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:21:42 +0200
Message-ID: <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:21:42 +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: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Cc: 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> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Y9iUO-iA1fkut4bZNgvQAEfSEkM>
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:21:56 -0000

On Tue 13/Jun/2023 23:33:50 +0200 Tero Kivinen wrote:
> [...]
>
> As you can see 85.75% of incoming email was already signed by DKIM,
> and 86.5% of emails had SPF records that passed. So they both have
> about same amount if usage coming in to our servers.


What are those 0.75%, some 30k SPF - DKIM messages?  Are there cases of DKIM 
random failure salvaged by SPF?


> 	0.19%	7506	none,pass
> 	0.15%	5910	pass,none


How do you order DKIM signatures?


Thanks for the data

Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email