Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Sat, 30 January 2021 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.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 38AB73A11BD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:02:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=bluepopcorn.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 64hkfudZE8qX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (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 617E03A11BB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:02:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=mpUOHkFqTlWdOFx4TUqLz13QdsPaLL7VhSPOGlbeQxM=; b=sH/1FrRNM3Xn2NlnwrtPZIrvkn 11BZ2qNxi8Bhwagw6T8ywnNywe5T7Oi3a01YD3iC3wM2lkDecDXma6eRMYRgDpSjHJJRHQqNvMuRP CffMeMBalhide2svaOUROy9CAkp3YboWa+Fb4wVNWbi1z0p+vAZRnrefr+rfrI/CTfuw=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:30d3:3a9d:66d5:72cc] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1l5yJt-0008AF-VK; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:02:18 -0800
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:02:17 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <892F89B5-F86C-4BAD-A88F-C7A48B930D04@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1edea785-2420-9812-643-c38bc4bf9577@taugh.com>
References: <20210130212339.447316D04763@ary.qy> <66EB1EFC-753D-49FA-8652-BABB10397990@bluepopcorn.net> <1edea785-2420-9812-643-c38bc4bf9577@taugh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZEakWQ7ZGoGh3yP6ueKXUCSk5Vo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
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: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:02:19 -0000


On 30 Jan 2021, at 13:57, John R Levine wrote:

>>> This is DMARC -- the HELO domain has to match the header From: and 
>>> there
>>> has to be an SPF record that validates it.
>>
>> True, but only if the MAIL FROM address is null and there isn’t a 
>> valid aligned DKIM signature.
>
> True, but I don't see why that matters.

Just confirming the context of your earlier statement.

> Because that's how DMARC works.  The header From has to match a DKIM 
> or SPF identity.
>
> Part of the problem here is that DMARC generally sits on top of an SPF 
> library which doesn't tell you how it got its result.  My DMARC code 
> just calls the SPF library and uses the result.  I suppose I could put 
> in a hack to say don't use the SPF result if the MAIL FROM is null, 
> but I don't think that's what 7489 says.

Are changes to 7489 off the table here? I didn’t know.

-Jim