IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 597A43A1639 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:58:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=HtFTHhrq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=ku4Ifa9K
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 VmqyhYihD0oU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 C204B3A161D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 68088 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2021 17:58:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=109f5.600f06c2.k2101; bh=p73ciA6isC4qn3jtwJ07wEuH1mxRi7CwylIUNs2EVJI=; b=HtFTHhrqRU0ZjH8qkRdOnz0TnQ6nijL3Wqg+vJ3EonOs/PNESeWZEtHQCKib3X0zSBG3Q4QEH38pwRsdqO3bMbZG6EFPXMeSNwfTe6xU21omz6UG58MQQnPuys//rakwE24C9kNh4BCprjnDNtVYSa4GVIpxZT0AA0K98cLzEwm9XWhgp+RJt76QpXiBrK9YLCo/A2UNZNbq9mmGFv+qFtd2rtVVNbV28Sc+jGGtSOUjiV4XOFz2ouFL4XxZp4jj+PMECt9xm4B+zd8isRHTmvPQSOtGlKT0nHwbze9kvK2zHxVO9ZWFknSIZtNmVuhnLd3OdaB7IsdRpOK6vPLpaQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=109f5.600f06c2.k2101; bh=p73ciA6isC4qn3jtwJ07wEuH1mxRi7CwylIUNs2EVJI=; b=ku4Ifa9KrnhtWGY4/c9opKf7cfgjem9qwQNsNyM7bZx+7JVH7GZvVgnBQUtThirZxxUayBC+SPXEbiOmDB4Tr9DngKx94r02iV0RDa6gPqFGDThijv8KNB4LmKs3UqwPWGUIbAD6ZHXkX2I11eBujf4SFGZpG8F2mb5IJFRgEWO1TO41PXn52gEXjtvL4dbzMzosB2sM6M3v9+CfoPjQvCjiHDpmmTV/RLka5K9jVxBtlaXoVw0DCeTdR9aGLnELUUBXT2VH4s9CruAd2jn7bf+HyFExdchXRxHDpZAvRp7yrL8C3P6eIEaOrPrpm8EZd3wYOZM0pI77nlsLeF5T4A==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 25 Jan 2021 17:58:26 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 03E766C12FF3; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:58:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:58:25 -0500
Message-Id: <20210125175826.03E766C12FF3@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <A551B531-BFCA-466A-8E8D-4EA4EF9FC82C@aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/czgVZGvBw4UEzT0CzVIBuab7zh4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:58:32 -0000

In article <A551B531-BFCA-466A-8E8D-4EA4EF9FC82C@aegee.org> you write:
>lets say a site signs an email with both rsa and ed25519 algorithms.  This site wants to know, whether the recipient can
>validate the ed25519 signatures, so that in the future rsa signing for that receiving site can be skipped (or errors in the
>ed25519 implementation fixed).

That strikes me as severe mission creep. It's something you certainly
might want to know, but it's not DMARC's job to solve it.


-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email