IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

Doug Foster <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==478ec354bd5==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.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 B59033A0D61 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
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=bayviewphysicians.com
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 gdIDhdMtC_Mw for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DB8D3A0C59 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1595956798-11fa3118c745220001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id MA5qBKim33YCllGk (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=message-id:subject:to:from; bh=lblp0YmVPUOn0zmEprO2mL2tcXTDjsGP/Q70DQBv+F0=; b=CJzX4kmJ7dfCWhCly2FHMXUh+Apz1WTICFsGZO9ZraBw+vupVwNQRc2Sn1nSparpl qctTP6v6fX23Vf1adf/HP4AFtYA0VwxfGMZXWj0VOPx6bJYVFv96WGrpKhFZKMsmw 3vMUFUe7GvxvcqcV2PgMiervTGLl83JYwbEom9VqE=
Received: from MSA189 (UnknownHost [192.168.2.108]) by webmail.bayviewphysicians.com with SMTP (version=TLS\Tls12 cipher=Aes256 bits=256); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:19:50 -0400
From: Doug Foster <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
X-Barracuda-RBL-IP: 192.168.2.108
To: hsantos@isdg.net, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <BY5PR13MB29998094418C8A6C25902569D7730@BY5PR13MB2999.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <c0361cb2-b25b-5d75-cb1f-f9c87e3ecccc@tana.it> <AE9A3A9F-27FC-4935-B8E6-AB0CE1A6D5E2@wordtothewise.com> <5F204CB3.7080404@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <5F204CB3.7080404@isdg.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:19:50 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
Message-ID: <000001d66503$4d447e50$e7cd7af0$@bayviewphysicians.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFHpygXkweDZoazBxZSoCWqrH1jAwK4lOz+AZq86VYCK6Xr9qoGv4mw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Exim-Id: 000001d66503$4d447e50$e7cd7af0$
X-Barracuda-Connect: smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1595956799
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 638
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.83526 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aP35oubuZH3GDgC6fJYXUxjBwCg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:20:02 -0000

Hector, I do not understand this comment:

"The DKIM Policy Model since ADSP lacked the ability to authorize 3rd party domains. DMARC did not address the problem and reason ADSP was abandoned. Hence the on-going dilemma."

Domains that participate with a mailing list have the option of including the ML servers in their SPF record, or delegating them a DKIM scope and key.    But to obtain that authorization from the sending domain, someone would have to ask for it, and might not receive the desired answer.

The goal of this discussion is to find a way to coerce trust.   We do not lack ways to grant trust on request.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email