Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 11 November 2019 08:16 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 B676512083D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:16:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 TtBrfBZyapFA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FBC2120826 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:16:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1573460185; bh=a+4s+gtzoM7T3KqY9FBI91RVhEaD3/poJveQdL2+a/Y=; l=849; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CQQRX7gx/FHbfb2YICO3teqkYpnKz1HYh6Y/lZYlx+7YKNWtunOqP418wq46aln2y fGofNZwO8sfdSrOjCUqTTrU+T1y3QCygnEcCSPZRvGjsdiq/UrGXP6WvpT7O1x7kz8 yHEA9Kuh/r+4Mqw2lR2bXN+yMv1x9xYOTLIrfnI8h/pPaGR9KvQOeDEL3kZGV
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC07E.000000005DC918D9.000077FC; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:16:25 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <e580ada3-d9b5-0e5b-9ac3-eade41ac92d2@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa5yR5dVzkDSD48MDgpUa11+ri=KOwrNSqOxi8fB2i6PA@mail.gmail.com> <eabefc6b-7542-1a46-4272-b786433ed0b5@tana.it> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <CAL0qLwb5FAaYZ7AX_H=aeUFkv8cvY+xd1bQ5uCDp4tmrbx2CQg@mail.gmail.com> <7a21b80b-e6bb-d8b9-cf63-601a8d1e47e7@tana.it> <C1E711A8-F3A6-4A20-B71D-53FA773A61D9@kitterman.com> <aca25d30-3b01-4eaf-6d0b-3bae6f3f796b@tana.it> <CABuGu1ogeUjW181MMOv3kApZR5njMMH6_84EnHxF0tDq6bhBkA@mail.gmail.com> <db4b1289-31cc-9b9e-bb5c-01bf8d6a37b3@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZcBGL8syD8FyOUkVqMzsmj4=uYM0NaSU2O3hte02AZVg@mail.gmail.com> <e45b7175-713e-da69-cc18-d0e4b59410c3@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZEEzvdvydrUUrBRRDfB-+3_7_9HB244qRC-+361cgwSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <d6f5f35e-5a49-bad2-3886-1f33d65e66a4@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:16:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZEEzvdvydrUUrBRRDfB-+3_7_9HB244qRC-+361cgwSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dKJ2WdnjjgxPUmYjIMmbAuekrQQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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, 11 Nov 2019 08:16:30 -0000

On Mon 11/Nov/2019 07:30:05 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> 
>> About the new ptype, a reviewer suggested to also use it to report
>> whether the query supported DNSSEC.  No DNSWL that I know supports it.
>> However, I know some DKIM filters report that feature either as a comment
>> or as a reason in the dkim= methodspec.  Using the new ptype might make
>> that clearer.  Consider:>>
>>     Authentication-Results: example.com;
>>       dkim=pass dns.sec=yes header.i=@example.org header.b=j5aQ3SJv
>>
> 
> Are there any MTAs that would take a different action based on this
> information?


Nobody cares about DNSSEC, until they fall victim to DNS hijacking attacks.

If the property is there, it may be easier to retrofit a fix in that case.


Best
Ale
--