IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] indeterminisim of ARC-Seal b= value

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 31 March 2017 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 371851294DF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 8nkhOx7Yczck for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 B0DE81294FC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.143.184] (dhcp-8fb8.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.143.184]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2VFw8W4016816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:58:08 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1490975889; bh=v2TYD2xaG7GAvZSIoMv+8wGSNhPNqBN/vy6enDFxuKs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EbpaCc+fpnuSjvU4Uyn/vBEmNafqZ0pv42CrxYagiaRq17wqSglQXXnFKQD4FnvKx 4x51MRUR97GW0AO31urye3wSbyjK65y2kaZSRJNAoYIFhiUOAlh/E/g/7qcBxHrUG8 rIj7PruUtiDvZh6tCTRwNTUNINVI9qEgb7bmzshI=
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
References: <CANtLugO_D1Mz_v_341pc5O1mZ7RhOTrFA3+Ob5-onp72+5uRfA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703272118210.2533@ary.local> <CAOj=BA0YKHYrkseR=wwgZn0_GNBKfdL7jmHehgBRzxqGKV6C1g@mail.gmail.com> <2978391.eJVbVTHBlo@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwbP4c+09=TNSOsDqKwcp6iw++aGW8jDhARoVwvsghSLvA@mail.gmail.com> <01QCKR5S5OXK0003XB@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAOj=BA3p-XQT=AeR4PHC-udWsn7rOmtR+UQHV0vbVofDKYOH_Q@mail.gmail.com> <01QCKXW9MZ4Q0003XB@mauve.mrochek.com> <1cf7325b-6f77-7cda-e330-025b7ddb0b92@dcrocker.net> <CAOZAAfM_fKf+egqmYQorobPB07kQpi5rP4rcb4Kj3fsLvcoRVw@mail.gmail.com> <2f516997-7c5e-2fad-1aeb-51590383f9c7@bbiw.net> <CAOZAAfMasvt8+_sFW=vvq-S-UHNVQ_H=1+sbkOojasm5GgNLRw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, Peter Goldstein <peter@valimail.com>, ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <37056495-806d-b2c1-c5be-05dfbb7dda21@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:55:54 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMasvt8+_sFW=vvq-S-UHNVQ_H=1+sbkOojasm5GgNLRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dOLca-3m1283Ax4EDdnEa0Mxq2Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] indeterminisim of ARC-Seal b= value
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 Mar 2017 15:56:06 -0000

On 3/30/2017 10:41 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> If the consensus here is that the matter is not worth pursuing further,
> that is fine - I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same
> thing.



Except that 'the matter is not worth pursuing' isn't what I heard anyone 
saying and it definitely wasn't what I meant...

I'm not sure whether it's been presented here sufficiently, but I 
believe your underlying concern is based on observed problems with 
implementation of the current ARC specification.  That is, from 
interoperability testing, the actual use of ARC is proving far too fragile.

If that's true, then there needs to be an effort to a) understand the 
fragility better, and b) consider ways to make ARC more robust.

So while there has been strong push-back against the /solution/ that you 
proferred, I am not clear whether there is working group understanding 
of the motivating concern or with the way to resolve it.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email