IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 14 March 2024 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 A3F05C14F6A4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.158 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="FVhJkuup"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="VnjB8tWG"
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 nvnictoKgnXY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 1782AC14F6A2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27476 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2024 19:23:03 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=6b5265f34e97.k2403; bh=goZoq0TBaNnRHCbyFalobXB9xLifQ1ee7WEJSPRr9SY=; b=FVhJkuupdJHuUYs+ssNGccsMX3TYFP/pH3zj9cEsu5Pd/TnNYp0X6oMgkLqbV9tkUeezUb6c+8Otax17LgIgsU8Rl8gJ3Ecrc+aRglUbB7OYMH5AhChb/kQ0L1/UAfL286lsSGqaXXMTvKoEjI6L9xl5nRp1eP33zfXg5DpmMW4T+X+FsWJYxsY2FGctbQR4eutuGWG6O5uBYDgtqkH7fA95f5JkGRyZUFcDGbb3Tylz3dQ1MtChBiygxU5i2pCgj6qo6qBE+206/2J6VBVyWTJ4VN57oO1Qb2zufF2g9x/w+8yw2/Su4c11yGWr0pxAAxPZ9qWxy7K0zShZWP4I9A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=6b5265f34e97.k2403; bh=goZoq0TBaNnRHCbyFalobXB9xLifQ1ee7WEJSPRr9SY=; b=VnjB8tWGB3X8uQMw+gpzAFV3BkMviLo6bXXweOD8wdZLhQTJPnFRxKX9jmdmSBcLmokv6In56Bkm97Y6ACTuNv2ko5qcZmXGy/7kk/028i7CgzsBlu/HM+cnCEHPTsGYWAu0TQ59BH1C+U7P5yyq/LEYYilwPCdsZmEDA7nznE480vfyvWOL5LvaUDZttIKSkuTr0AtJnsqMJgvdRbYzCjwxyW2W7e4KVuArreEDtx8KGr9meALRo1F7qQM7OxyBe5FY6lpP73p441wCaVy/INJrx2iZ98CDWCPXjcUDtnkoN2r84HH7LA/Jei9jHd0I0GzEVz85C6rVXtJtzKl5yg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 14 Mar 2024 19:23:02 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7D647855FBCF; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:23:01 -0400
Message-Id: <20240314192302.7D647855FBCF@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <9400216.9ixZcBn5L4@zini-1880>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YGcaQmk8veDkID6gP1iRg9qA_4A>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 132 - 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 SHOULD vs MUST (was Another point for SPF advice)
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:23:11 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>> SPF it treated in multiple places.  We cannot warn against a bad practice in
>> one place (135) and recommend it unconditionally in another (132).
>
>That is exactly how one handles Security Considerations.  So 132 says do SPF.  
>Security Considerations gives you stuff to think about how you do SPF.  There's 
>not need to embed mitigations for the considerations throughout the draft 
>(someone with more IETF experience than me, please correct me if I'm wrong 
>about this).

If you're going to provide implementation advice for SPF, which I still think is
a bad idea, security considerations is indeed the least bad place to do it.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email