IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Wed, 03 January 2018 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 27681129C6A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:50:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
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 oISQ1ydDFcIu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD78120046 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c19so2996131lfg.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:50:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/dklvvvUrn8SMKa8x4SxTeYXDe4JPCVyWSydOGrgHhY=; b=MztfqmrGp4kXm82FKHGoyg6dDPO6uz9cJTNtSSPZLrpJ7Qd8V0jNZWPvex1wHWgYDn SwUvl2LgHBK3008MVy/9/eCP19zCPWFMhMeRK1Z7w4RHVvgWQb+KZLIT+SqTPnxobtSs ZdXtmvTNGhCPZyFT7E6zOJvUqjTlHjjHHzphY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc; bh=/dklvvvUrn8SMKa8x4SxTeYXDe4JPCVyWSydOGrgHhY=; b=Z0/fxMJ5OB95Q6LdaEnI9Q4fP7cBT5LPyW8HKspv+ZDT9Lu7D6RPj/NgQuPjvj4yWe KCYsXE4NE2brGPQ47NVJ9jUBwI5w9QyMS/Y6jmfad7+GEI0ikNwIXZ7YIIT0CnVPHa5x K5jPQ8YFdqMaZzsMH30+/s+iXwXEheWNG7k5BV32HtdNCtHCt6mnRlRnyjGq9kxJ1OY6 i+cU204XiSIXC6VMvKaTZfGzctWdWfirgVL9uB/OZdytimoWiBKwXCJlZH4pTwXmQuYr leC+I5niqut50/AnLGmuyRYoORw2B85UOWQLmg6HyJv0LAyQOYzJAB5Vv/8vZCLvmDch VuSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI4NFpVTFumkpfL/Yn0KXXi1dLl4GyRaJOBUA7etDQ+Ur5IMU7Q DhZnMAbME5Sa3bjh25D6epIIIEyw+RiwoCXg32YSF0xo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovOPnmc3BtFFYKI5hpt00pznUy47CUe2F5svAHXR32kgcurGUpo/BXi2McLMgATIX32Oodl2gBKlWsdzaVF6EM=
X-Received: by 10.25.222.18 with SMTP id v18mr1656040lfg.143.1515019802250; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:50:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: kurta@drkurt.com
Received: by 10.25.56.11 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:50:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:50:01 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3uaoMS5nyVFBctXRTpz-hrF4KxI
Message-ID: <CABuGu1oEWD5Ls3+SKqEgUgXo2iznawFdNB31h91+NbAHpLE59Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c31562426460561e70995"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hZQN8iNNkyP5xBJwwmNI0byaXzc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail
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: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:50:06 -0000

While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his (see
email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank <
seth@sethblank.com> wrote:

>
> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
>

I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
"arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or
"arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent
ARC set. Doing so is not in any way a "failure" and has no bearing on the
validity of the ARC chain (as documented in the cv parameter). Opinions
regarding a replacement term?

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email