IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 23 June 2023 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 1D7DEC1519B0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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="r1+nXRfa"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="JY+jJt20"
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 ym5242BwkheK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:52:29 -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 F15E0C151982 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 52396 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2023 16:52:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=cca8.6495cdca.k2306; bh=RDDNlgDtALSqhpYNgcPTV/ccIO1oLJX44jgYuRQPyEk=; b=r1+nXRfa/tt+0Q7RIG9XaUWOGfOH7Fu/apPBNyW1Lf3NGtlvNWQVEeTNAxE1uES6R+kDFDo1I0E6p0rN6Jem4TYYqQ7jpmbah9bXNaBqlyP8kF0hIOMct6LL1mCCHQ59buiDNYQE6WhpCo5FuAEVSeHkiMHVZ5ezvUhFekuprETqlcXVWaS71dUxmebsyBcYhLIvEferF+uDtwnNPdzVcj2tyMV/0yWjYpjaJMWEhY8Psr6tjITxOZfwpT13PWDvk4it+JJXdHIq681mCzJn9nNHDPDHJCqp6mdHwr3aGeYZj7f8Qe7W/swVV2N3LkCQYr4WTD3XNmkFnFHPr1UJag==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=cca8.6495cdca.k2306; bh=RDDNlgDtALSqhpYNgcPTV/ccIO1oLJX44jgYuRQPyEk=; b=JY+jJt20P8x8bNm7ZqOZRX5Kb2qU9WkCwW8niAvlavex2FcVx6N4NHqcCns8tfuk9B+xcMaWILQcg50cw6EmcSkmvboQE3zvU5q5LqLRcCWXjXTRGhSx6z9wv7GL+E60SdOhiZbVUrapEYJDFqR6GMbYxSUdEZOzZQJ6b7ncY5ceJYIgAdz3lGiYyDuVwW1BQhS3734LlhL0/Z4QlYP6dymIV3+r+72kRWZkQeTqKkAZmoNlWfNQZ6uphhcyQzmjmaKHQhU2GItEAW3mmtayxw5gELVBJMwIrmk8NasBvW6hTm027OWP4irF36z/0rjdcdl79jw5yqGfCbdS7nEQDA==
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 AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 23 Jun 2023 16:52:25 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 214DCFA2DC41; Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2D3FA2DC40; Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:52:25 -0400
Message-ID: <bfbe77ad-8aba-d803-de06-d734a177066b@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Emanuel Schorsch <emschorsch@google.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, emgu@google.com
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <CAFcYR_WY8MEag7sup_7DnmzRuZJ7zeyJT6TATL45wCKBrsF3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABZJ8kmg75qo70V-N65b6C4w+g7gX0ehv3CsqG-765BbBGcn=A@mail.gmail.com> <20230623021810.E5F8DF9B3B94@ary.qy> <CAFcYR_WY8MEag7sup_7DnmzRuZJ7zeyJT6TATL45wCKBrsF3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_ehQNBq9O9EpU06bHe3SF530Dfo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:52:34 -0000

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023, Emanuel Schorsch wrote:
> I agree with John's point that dkim+spf doesn't make sense in the context
> of strict DMARC enforcement (I think it provides value for p=none domains

Since the aggregate reports tell you what authentication worked, I don't 
even see that as a benefit.  There's also the question how many people 
would even look at a DMARC v2 tag which would be a prerequisite for the 
auth tag.

> confused users misusing that option. I would support allowing the following
> options for the auth tag:
>   "auth=dkim|spf (default value: same as current state), auth=dkim, auth=spf"

The idea is that auth=dkim means you'd publish SPF records but hope people 
will ignore them, or vice versa for auth=dkim?  I still don't get it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email