IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 13 April 2023 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 98606C1522C8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net
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 j0lQxwcAJPB1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (mail.winserver.com [3.137.120.140]) (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 9A35BC1907A6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=613; t=1681413213; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=A9irFwdl+vDqcKEQBanXyZ9r/up5RvT0AK9Nhf00TN8=; b=NJOt tEDfC9NzN74DZMl10GyoOGw56y+Vtl0t/ckhC79JBuDJVtJA7YNks/zW+5+u5np7 KQyXlj9v5T6rOAQXvbLCI6qOeNlXDnh3vg9vtREtoONEozn9Xu4DgsAdkQlXbp6P Nxd0KFLdi8AGAmsRUmSD3k8vEoJng0222l8Bflg=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.13) for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:13:33 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.13) with ESMTP id 1806010145.1.5232; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:13:32 -0400
Message-ID: <64385461.3090106@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:13:37 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
CC: dmarc@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
References: <CAL0qLwYbbLLq-qLg_Wnp5aFw_2my4UTZz3U3LjwbCmpMNdudfA@mail.gmail.com> <20230413151342.B96D0BF17F1F@ary.qy> <CALaySJKM5Kct0u0ekuEBS=DVQTXG_CiewpzNwVyPiAaQ9zx3VA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKM5Kct0u0ekuEBS=DVQTXG_CiewpzNwVyPiAaQ9zx3VA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/b-9eb6_C0NyLeaeoGGZXdGOOyIk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:13:52 -0000

On 4/13/2023 11:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
>> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.
> This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
> stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability, and
> using SPF only, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
Keep in mind, there are implementers of SPF that act at SMTP before 
DATA and reject hard failures with 55z errors.  In other words, no 
payload is transferred.



-- 
Hector Santos,
https://santronics.com
https://winserver.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email