Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 21 June 2019 18:46 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 A442112012C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=IxWTyAXN; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nwdzY7ig
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 spOcj1HAqqmq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 7E88C120384 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17163 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2019 18:46:27 -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; s=4309.5d0d2603.k1906; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Xlac4Mb+MVwJ3di/cuhVp+tA6eJLcahoV4xzwwG4smc=; b=IxWTyAXNpFJLJZN1JD0Vx3U8AjtpUncpj85mGHnYK/GQmwqGFw+bXV6iX9u5ue95bDMiKt8CdQaXaXgSu2m5mODI+akIyJDPdmfTZULALIr1kjEsMVjovHdu6NGdYzehMTfuGUJ2QTFjMfRqI/hubKAGfJXYfq74KUuJ3JyBHgNs9dOBW4bUWI1UJho3dlrFZGPobdoP1DhkMohB1h7wtL1Mjr0L1wfpg81hoNLJ5N+nxhDYaext4yPaiSgZcsom
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; s=4309.5d0d2603.k1906; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Xlac4Mb+MVwJ3di/cuhVp+tA6eJLcahoV4xzwwG4smc=; b=nwdzY7ig05h+Z+iiKTZHqGukC2uVyb2VjJESLLzP5+O5+IsZmIdozklQs2qcqpiGl1NTe5b0EHFZosjuL04Y+2RRiJW81Jpvw4HUkPla3xnwVNqOahv84dxANUNBDGHEiWoO8E4nuOIWDLcX4w5VsuiaIE1zGZyNKL9WNAi0gecxxRfAllkgM8Pm+jjcsYsGXQNM0htc22N3NtHRyHD+Pzzb4dWsnS21pQmgzB6yiEGUVw9tGTb5TpzIdohRviD6
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 21 Jun 2019 18:46:26 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id AE1B52016298ED; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 21 Jun 2019 14:46:26 -0400
Message-Id: <20190621184626.AE1B52016298ED@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: tki@tomki.com
In-Reply-To: <7cd366d2-ab8d-cce8-67ff-59b79183cd67@tomki.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/eI45Ms1JdU7ByucrsbImD3BWTlo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:46:42 -0000

In article <7cd366d2-ab8d-cce8-67ff-59b79183cd67@tomki.com>; you write:
>As mentioned by Elizabeth recently:  (Elizabeth please chime in if this 
>doesn't capture your meaning)
>
>the spec does not define *which* DKIM signature should be reported in 
>the DMARC RUA created by a receiver.  The proposed resolution to this is 
>that if the receiver does not provide the complete set of DKIM 
>signatures found, they should provide (in order of preference)
>1. a signature which passed DKIM in strict alignment with the From: 
>header domain
>2. a signature which passed DKIM in relaxed alignment with the From: 
>header domain
>3. some other signature that passed DKIM
>4. some other signature that didn't pass DKIM

This seeems overcomplex.  How about saying the reports SHOULD include
all valid DKIM reports.  If they can't, they can't, and I don't see
any benefit in offering advice on how not to comply.