Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 06 December 2020 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 0589D3A0957 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id llj2O4iPbW8N for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534E53A0940 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:31:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607279490; bh=glrU5KA4+eyui2EGqrCITK7Ejm4XSjDK+MZzU5CCUIU=; l=1934; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Byw5v5hE7Ovh94AC8Ht++Lcgb5O2whPBtrEV1p1JQy6NC7oudroOi839R8wcnZ+LA VnoqaGtPp7peEkVHcq8b0LmuxxLYvsPBxkcy7fiMymh993DOue+TE0S78v64Cs205A RSzaXAbNNtdAocS/9WIqh8zX4rwFDv8VmR3WkkJXKwXrzQHN3b9PDG912i/G0
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.000000005FCD2382.000037A3; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 19:31:30 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201205231059.2BA23290EDCD@ary.qy> <b437a23a-7e7e-f70d-04dc-49810d002c43@mtcc.com> <b6950472-599b-d0a7-c0d1-82db099fb99b@gmail.com> <7ae42764-176d-11a8-e084-b10b6f676944@mtcc.com> <cb526017-c198-44f1-7282-986e5a810d6a@gmail.com> <8142f18c-ac79-1f94-97d1-2704f0b4ceb6@mtcc.com> <CAH48ZfwHKoVZn9RdhBh-xU=he8=smB59R5EF1TYJ_0upEDHn2A@mail.gmail.com> <72d32b62-64fb-937a-dac5-6f4c5816f523@mtcc.com> <cc5cd21c-ae32-512c-e988-55dfabd39e38@tana.it> <d96eb6cc-0412-0215-5ce2-28dbcfc13a8f@mtcc.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <80558d32-2498-f9b3-313f-2211c1731e73@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 19:31:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d96eb6cc-0412-0215-5ce2-28dbcfc13a8f@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bPgKsWbr3nUfdJ_pkAmdH_y0fag>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 18:31:36 -0000

On Sun 06/Dec/2020 18:01:04 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/6/20 5:40 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sun 06/Dec/2020 02:34:45 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 5) The work you and Alessandro have done with reverse transformation is 
>>>> more likely to produce a solution for the mailing lists.   The lists will 
>>>> continue to do From rewrite, but reverse-transform recipients can validate 
>>>> the true source of the message and restore the From if desired.
>>>
>>> I'm starting to get a little more serious about my quip that the MLM can 
>>> insert a sed script in a header to unmangle the message since it knows what 
>>> transforms it has done, unlike the receiving MTA trying to guess the common 
>>> transformations.
>>
>> But then the receiving MTA will have to guess whether the sed script 
>> considerably alters the intended meaning of the message. For example, does it 
>> change a bank account number?
>
> This actually highlights why my observation is correct. If the intermediary 
> showed how to reverse their changes perfectly to be able to validate the 
> original signature, it says nothing about whether those changes to be delivered 
> to the recipient are acceptable to the originating domain. for the case of a 
> bank sending me sensitive mail, the answer is that it is never ok. for somebody 
> working on internet standards working on ietf lists, the answer is that it is 
> fine. hence trying to get two states of the one "reject" is insufficient.


For MLM transformations, this choice can be done by tuning DKIM signatures.  A 
bank can choose to sign Sender: field (or lack thereof), or any other fields 
that a MLM has to change, and possibly use simple canonicalization.  In that 
conditions, transformation reversion won't work.  It isn't a distinct DMARC 
state, formally.  Yet, tuning DKIM signatures allows to harden or weaken the 
given DMARC state.


Best
Ale
--