IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sat, 26 December 2020 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 08E073A0BF8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 lAtKEy7Te0f5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (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 EAFE63A0BF7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id n10so5137384pgl.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=u8SC14bpaRCUtr7D5REGqhXsSCl/oF4LWgVsFgjzLlM=; b=DwjT1KbKbg1Mr8gmFxalxFOVhO+sgSQ0USyYIe8V5Wds1JbSUVrRnDPhw/FE/RLA33 RMcIQmaWkCz+IZuoBhctrZTem87rYfFY4S8Oqwsha5NGTnTT018mJEUvGHF+Y7pHaaEz uljoLJYWb2avvvkUz8ui+PuSbZTf4GWFfVpypIVLaJczaRVgX3LfkN1Gqy2bnin5cAKT F0o8nUg4qEF3mfDbOggYwtHGwYetDmlEjw4qXo4l3RbyA3BUsHHawkCwb7EZCLWuJw1L WFH7f5Y3qeWgNRMdaE/wPPTEfch2/IOVLAAvB3hFxwDtWef3+hDo3gyBs2/qDDVxjVqH yhww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=u8SC14bpaRCUtr7D5REGqhXsSCl/oF4LWgVsFgjzLlM=; b=k86F8gN+brGu1qbz4x26nPM0MB7ARFm/Jmh4eaLRqQkLdZPuqAcoP8L0dw3WQMcRP3 oZpClvs6tdn8Dlq/HtsWfDDGU9wsio6HvcMF32g19f5APEEd/kp+YQv+pEtLt6o2Bq6m e1sBxZfdHRMLmbjIYllRtWRIrjehBORa+HXoNFugCh1ojm1+XFmiKOtanxKLlraR/0gv jgVkVI3yBliYFR0aKDUKxF8Tjv9Se2iUx6IZAfOikmQFwp0V7zbqddZ6rHEenw+1F/bX OFtCVx1KVSZQ/eyK0iNKzLyLEoS/dALjivd7x4Jx2qw9xkqIbZqnFNyzvSbQXK3E/RRc VuGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+Imu9UgNYKQj1MDGLIgCfHpUAp7J0zYmnZCY0Nrk+9F+PNl6I D6eo6uzyvEtSrNyZwZQdU0LTZaqDBckLKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+vrm93hpvaEQYPBeK9eZop7X26BTRh4CMVIxo9MCajQv2zZ7x4Z03jn9npAXGZrCj5SOUTA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7904:: with SMTP id u4mr37474429pgc.41.1609026476742; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ([107.182.37.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e10sm29927134pgu.42.2020.12.26.15.47.55 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:56 -0800 (PST)
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:47:54 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/i9GpOYFTVTOi4NbxGO2Zp6OIncc>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:47:59 -0000

I installed this handy dandy t-bird dkim verifier extension which also 
allows you to just use the upstream auth-res.  After fixing a bug in it, 
I could see that it lists DMARC as a fail when DKIM failed, but SPF 
passed. The _dmarc record has p=none, so it seems really odd to call 
that a DMARC failure. Shouldn't it just be using the appropriate p= tag 
instead of "fail"? Is this left over from when Auth-res was mainly for dkim?

Aside to John Levine: you had two messages to nanog back to back, one 
verified and one failed DKIM. I doesn't seem like nanog is doing any 
rewriting or anything so that is very strange. Maybe they are 
inadvertently rewriting in some situations that aren't obvious?

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email