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

[Seth Blank <[e-mail]>]

At M3AAWG a couple of years ago, a VLMB said that 60% of the DKIM errors
they saw were obvious human error in the publishing of keys.

This is why I’ve been pushing (through M3AAWG, and hopefully eventually via
the appropriate working groups here) the need to automate publishing of
DKIM keys. They’re public after all, and a human (and generally, multiple
humans) shouldn’t need to be in the critical path of getting a key from a
sending system UI and then getting it published properly in DNS.

My main point on this whole thread is there’s a lot of theory, but as
Tevo’s data shows, the reality of these deployments and their challenges is
far trickier.

I’m still working with Todd to bring our own data on SPF to the working
group.

Seth, as an individual

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:10 Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:34 PM Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>         DKIM failures
>>         ================================================================
>>         36.34%  26619   invalid DKIM record
>>
>
> This is staggering.  Can you characterize what the most common
> malformations are?
>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
-- 

*Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer
*e:* [e-mail]
*p:*

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.