IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 06 April 2024 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 6D947C14F5FA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="8y4iV9SO"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="RuEyYfXu"
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 SNlQxqSSCIEw for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BC3EC14F5F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (unknown [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 736B8F8020E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1712422861; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=6cDC4N4gPth6Nhn2746mNg9eVfDQiyAnTILP46/odM8=; b=8y4iV9SOkdi562fU7zCO8L1zSZOnUsk5YCit1Vq/WcJYGuvAHdRbUwJdcN5thmhsLUTAh sRtzyu01nVDZhBRAg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1712422861; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=6cDC4N4gPth6Nhn2746mNg9eVfDQiyAnTILP46/odM8=; b=RuEyYfXu38izUJzIkt5MXqaGeL+4/vD/izxkT9nDO9lIBZImO/rMaQe+hm0bYilh0WQ30 xBtdMFA8rWPzo/C5ORE4PddTjazAgnauQFFglTEF9gQShOji9KJeA7wEwlswn+Uy+iD4Rl/ 9bcS/VhAOeA9G64FSfZ6cXapI8R1D3jvT+AeaGZPvl3eFpKXd/6BwqXBQzDsIpRV6hWc85E XnG0T18hFpLpELbOxYqd1rNlD+o6DaBwG8i8wuGs07PI8OkxLvGeBWRnh8SKCq9YMuRQ0IR JsNNFtZHg/LhIXjjm5flMMj41uGz8TOWMqyHLA4LFO1/NE7DFk+qj0+SYFMQ==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A5DF80126 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 2024 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:00:55 -0400
Message-ID: <2267299.JiQHTZpMlS@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8=te5Zx_5-rB67CLPy_Eh03H6bE=34T-sTAwwmnvRTqWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHej_8=te5Zx_5-rB67CLPy_Eh03H6bE=34T-sTAwwmnvRTqWg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/cs3L4OCk7sd3O82JwGbieHlDHNw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 141 DMARC and What To Say About SPF -all
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: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 17:01:45 -0000

On Monday, April 1, 2024 4:45:20 PM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> Greetings.
> 
> Issue 141 has been opened to collect ideas around the discussion about what
> to say in DMARCbis (if anything) about honoring SPF records that end in
> -all when SPF fails.
> 
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/141

I don't really understand the need for this.  What to do when SPF produces a 
fail result is an SPF question.  Not a DMARC question.  Additionally, we have 
discussed this before.  Note that not even RFC 7208 tells receivers what to do 
with SPF fail.  It seems far, far out of scope to do so here.

On the theory that the invocation not to relitigate things we've already gone 
through won't be honored entirely in the breach, can we not do this?

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email