IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 16 June 2023 07:15 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 D5DEEC151093 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 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_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=tana.it header.b="JmDEI3Mp"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="CaKy9r0M"
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 Hvh-N2IKG7Au for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31A6C15108F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 00:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1686899713; bh=IscT4wvavsdhnMklqPclno0ei4DgttqoMgEADADsYow=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=JmDEI3Mp0B7oJAcUIhOrz+V4/JD56zXvETp7HN2hulzcn2QsxDXKakxQVFs8CeZ5w +a0L6HKm2ZE3f5SxainDw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1686899713; bh=IscT4wvavsdhnMklqPclno0ei4DgttqoMgEADADsYow=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CaKy9r0MWWKalEVAB0qMXAnLm95Vt7/CWN2ZR4ZR9LuBbRxT/GaJqtPjt9SsPpwV6 QBjETE37eTNv47QyQZjTGoVbetgslYERRU/atZeKlSJMWLoPBpkBS4Jj/87ErJyAuh XcYPMlZPpJdNLhNXVyVX1dTCnOYQNn5V7TswcTNbRMDbhBZZM4gIYBtqUIKMa
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
Author: 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 00000000005DC04A.00000000648C0C01.000020FF; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 09:15:13 +0200
Message-ID: <5d9a0b0f-8777-2494-d779-376c6ab8b37d@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 09:15:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <D225D7FC-C570-4B63-A694-9F16DB1F33E1@kitterman.com> <CALaySJKwuOK-81dW2H9dtURxa5mLQDUNo+MWcs+Hho8N+yP9qg@mail.gmail.com> <2817813.dRqVH37e0G@localhost> <CALaySJJbPFBAV_7mZaARYWuMzuX+74r2Cm0jD+z92_iuFRn_MQ@mail.gmail.com> <25736.57534.195344.782189@fireball.acr.fi> <1ec42959-977a-9ce0-907a-83a5eb2b6ef2@tana.it> <25739.5435.550786.601699@fireball.acr.fi> <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <25739.33240.127804.524371@fireball.acr.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/d9Y7v28iRl16WxQdJqDszMMY3z4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 07:15:30 -0000

On Thu 15/Jun/2023 23:25:44 +0200 Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 
> I rerun the statistics and yes, there is 0.84% cases where dkim
> failed, but spf returned either pass, softfail or neutral.


Many thanks.  That figure seems to be more or less in agreement with what 
others here have obtained on smaller samples.  However small, it may confer to 
SPF the role of a stabilizer in DMARC mail flows.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email