Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

On 9/29/2020 1:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>> On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
>>> DMARC establishes the relationship.
>> I don't read it that way.
>>
>> DKIM binds the signer d= domain and the from.domain with no
>> enforcement on it nor any indication that they are related when they
>> not the same (the missing link).
>
>
> Absolutely not.  Please re-read the DKIM specification more carefully.
> It is quite explicit that it is doing not doing this.
>
> To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you
> need to point to the documentation that supports that view.

It began with the theory, and first implementation DomainKeys and its 
built-in policy tag "o=". Followed by DKIM early drafts with its 
enhanced signature and extended policy tag "o=" formerly known as SSP 
when separated from DKIM to create DKIM-BASE and ADSP as WG proposed 
standard work items, ADSP poisoned, returns as DMARC, since then.

Since the very beginning, my implementation, one of the better 
implementations of DKIM in the market, algorithmically and 
programmatically, follow the DKIM-BASE, DKIM-POLICY process model 
which binds, at a minimum, the RFC5322.From header, with a signer 
domain with an inherent and implicit and explicit intent and reason 
for this association.

Per the abstract, my experience suggest the question has never been 
answered, nor the association separated from the original concept.

Do you have an algorithm that replaces the current one?


-- 
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos