IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 09 June 2023 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 DE7E6C1519B1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 48qPNDbV8JkB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f42.google.com (mail-ej1-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 870BFC1519B0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f42.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9788faaca2dso258527466b.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686299975; x=1688891975; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=/yrSZKzR3HWw23uL+zlFN0HhpagHiBbWd7vRl/y1Poc=; b=Go32qire0p4mXIwNYwDCUSvBA0f2D4fud3vS/cIvm1qWCNG2p9QV8JuCQZcE4z88XJ XTQJMGNnzfbaHLQ0NgWvW9QikOhE8umbhTCPqBOXfPwY0Ec/tpTyU8c1XGIgShWmZbCR N6pHWtQ2nuR9gPNuOca91EUfPn9Me6cXtQFwhfjNAOBNCMZ+ZesJoVCvpCTMy5Pk3So2 SY1I+kzEdrkyuS/5Pfbt8a5nqm9owq8FMnA7WQLP5G2WEO3/3fJY2dmNnyFGzUTT1GFT EcUBRVSKOMab4c61oFN9eTFB7+3DROgasEbF55ayGEaqpQh/PE5tYWO6C49Z1j9lUGoW oNdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzvsSH73sU5Ag5Lauv1eBOnvtwbgQ1xyTll660nwFbs6nzyWzKT ltaVJ1pmchMTaZ/vQmzKhbTQn6VV/3X2lOfuQxHFcAuUdz8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4PAnInzwevQ3Bv0TK90HntxqwVmX1CSLKFHNbPCFBJthw1bG69RB0ytfZ80zT+cHZkDQqJbpbvEqAaBr0E2VA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c03:b0:96f:32ae:a7e1 with SMTP id nc3-20020a1709071c0300b0096f32aea7e1mr947713ejc.63.1686299974708; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 01:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <CAL0qLwbx6Y=kmB5pQZx8gNqD=rLBYz1vLOX6ngL=wUHHUm0Hjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz3jo6Jy7ByfS9EM8Luy5atEtuTMtvDfYuo56Gj9ryRcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48Zfz3jo6Jy7ByfS9EM8Luy5atEtuTMtvDfYuo56Gj9ryRcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 09:39:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+obaK85BhemSBTJTxJCjMn++1vcTs8RyGJW5XCrtAHeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/eGZXIRZGH9RtHNLvZu73uuVZV1A>
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, 09 Jun 2023 08:39:37 -0000

Thanks for some data, Doug.  One comment on what's after the data
(still talking as a participant here):

> We have two topics intermixed:  (a) should we deprecate SPF for DMARC purposes, and (b) should we
> deprecate SPF completely.   We should definitely not deprecate SPF completely.

I am certainly not intermixing these!  I agree with you that we should
*not* deprecate SPF at this time.  I am *only* supporting that we
remove its use in the standards-track version of DMARC, and that's all
this working group has scope to do anyway, according to our charter.
And, yes, a recipient that uses DMARC with DKIM only... is quite free
to *also* consider SPF in its decision about handling the message...
just (if we do this) not as part of the DMARC evaluation.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email