IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Debugging and preventing DKIM failures- suggestion

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 31 May 2019 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 F28ED1200A4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 vHoDDVwA_SES for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 21:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1308F120004 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 21:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.123] (94-21-223-16.pool.digikabel.hu [94.21.223.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x4V4halc008283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 May 2019 21:43:38 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1559277819; bh=5nX5BP0tLHw+lxcjG1954F25/u8pSnfV+m3H5EqoW6U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d7Udrzjz3VwlgWigput3J2DaMySPPhnVJ2zlv3ozDmFTq3mp3QWtOyBDcuWJ7qcPW RoLMDaitougwu4qMd908wsoBp3/RkVFeJgWOZ9D/ZRW3EiSBAMvI89mgqJxKLRL1tZ iitGLRH5CM9fQsZCXpx/aoeJnW/qroFtngHpS8LI=
To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <54FB29A0-517A-430E-AF5B-CB079CC3D7F6@aegee.org> <20190526144848.08A772014A0BF4@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwbxwLTpgYJN9qBTzi2oN1EMvAYuNoDbw5Rx5W46-WNyLA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1905301712140.76792@ary.qy> <c559a331d90b49eba5b5f6e35ff4774a@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <1931a4e4-7112-56ae-24e6-b138466392b4@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 21:41:27 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c559a331d90b49eba5b5f6e35ff4774a@bayviewphysicians.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YqYi5m_87pWI3TLObQNsEPiW38c>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Debugging and preventing DKIM failures- suggestion
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: Fri, 31 May 2019 04:41:37 -0000

On 5/30/2019 7:49 PM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> I rather hoped that IETF would be the poster-boy for list processing 
> done correctly.

"Correctly"?

A message to a list is 'delivered' to the list. As in, it goes to the 
specified addresse... the list.  A message from a list has been 
re-posted by the list.

There are no constraints on the changes that are permitted to a message, 
before it is re-posted.  There are no specifications that limit or 
direct the behaviors of a list processor.

Different groups want and probably need different behaviors by a list 
processor.  Periodic efforts to create such constraints have failed.

So while it would certainly make things easier to have list processors 
behave in a simple, consistent manner, there's ample evidence that ain't 
gonna happen.

If you can link the 'correctly' you are suggesting, to some documented, 
community consensus, please cite it.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email