IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 13 April 2023 15:21 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 250DAC151B10 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.553 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 qabRfmE0VjeO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f47.google.com (mail-ej1-f47.google.com [209.85.218.47]) (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 36023C151B0D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f47.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-94c67e52a65so216359966b.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681399301; x=1683991301; 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=dB1HVhJ3Lnf0JwtVa+a7seu1PI/z/UhsvGLMbtrHSlM=; b=MxCo2TfiIKURDXUOApKvZGTUiXfg2f3zmSWkCdGO+sopIyeZwL9gYV3KU8S0gN34Yn 5ETt5abFnDjZ/jHXbYU6afqRjbC6fWL5KxZ2rDSGLECU/FEFXCdXAklgXBIv/cony9rq 1vgc1t7eOS+IijlIH25Uur2Ohs7tlnlXRXRyO1P7Fbwce+h3NOXhM2ImUwD0p2tTuoGa 2Ip8/V2r9PxE4Dq/5sol2S2B2IE86mlONZAKmTQn6bDt+RS5F6OVbz3YIGMoHYCZQ1ND 2e/IwNrVfqd0qPrnVTij7X5BSvG4tHzHHeSzpZpyWmPMTPp5LnusR0Tj7NQMOS28oNkC tgnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fzwPhfqJl3SHwd+FpRWfccoqwAM/ysn4D9CFU4zwalaUyPayLZ N8+MU4N11FT4zi49OtGoIcBQiBept5hChnlH5FU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aG+9Uics9rr3qkgePlWM1lAaYAcI++DD85QfhQu5nZQXf/FmPB77eHdL9iiV1Gg3Dj2gFjEDYY12AENufr+dw=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9549:0:b0:501:d2f5:7da9 with SMTP id v9-20020a509549000000b00501d2f57da9mr1453961eda.0.1681399301512; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwYbbLLq-qLg_Wnp5aFw_2my4UTZz3U3LjwbCmpMNdudfA@mail.gmail.com> <20230413151342.B96D0BF17F1F@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20230413151342.B96D0BF17F1F@ary.qy>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:21:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKM5Kct0u0ekuEBS=DVQTXG_CiewpzNwVyPiAaQ9zx3VA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/guwCmDiXFuCFd78d4iB00AeTuE8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:21:45 -0000

> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.

This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability, and
using SPF only, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email