[dmarc-ietf] New authentication method, DNSWL

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 04 June 2019 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966291200D6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 04:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3tsf2XJobKr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C71A5120018 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 04:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1559646102; bh=rhBaYwjLF8sE1XUhQMqcxd8g55hNYEE3kBBoxgVY8Z0=; l=627; h=To:From:Date; b=B1GN6+Fc+Yov34Ux9IDUZhI/Dh9Nc6sCi1bSUpgzTQStKW3zUT7g7Z2b4WVaSu6EB H9wG8Ik0NI0CN/j7twJFhvkAt34EbTJOf2stV9wtY7dA2aEFzuMmeb3PCnHljH6pCm iWhpDX9y+O0Q/d57ABSGrJ2G+KgeFP+vucQG0XLrnl9rblLoEub8wcc0UCZCA
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 13:01:42 +0200 id 00000000005DC03D.000000005CF64F96.000014AB
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <e580ada3-d9b5-0e5b-9ac3-eade41ac92d2@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:01:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aSAo5DA_jwcA-nqybh4z8_-7roY>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] New authentication method, DNSWL
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, 04 Jun 2019 11:01:46 -0000

Hi all,

Appendix D1 of rfc7208 mentions DNSWL as a way to mitigate SPF's
reject-on-fail.  The score attributed to the sender by a trusted DNSWL is also
useful after DATA, thence the need to store that value for downstream filters.

However, as an authentication method, a DNSWL TXT response can provide a domain
name, which is possibly aligned with From:.  In that sense, this method might
be of interest for this WG.  Probably not, but I felt compelled to make sure
before trying independent submission.  (Already tried ART.)  The I-D is here: