IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 18:21 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 B36A93A0B22 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 CqhomNbH_INP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (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 6D4703A0B1F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id w1so2271459pjc.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=9udrJhutvdwgFk7uuEpoJfGwuFddjwsAVg2AGgSlkdM=; b=JDGY4nJ6k23SwZzFor3tzNkvhDD1utatZXph0OiEaZHJRlQuVgA3zHTKBJ+q4bAJk8 Lztu5gg/G/mIjE2snH43l4X/lMQHcWA2t5Mwy1iWXTNdXSO1xupy4ADhbJ3N+fenNK6C UilBRrVHdwD5Dj7Hq5CmylQAM4pnp0zsKNmGR1IhipIm71EYNg2KN5MrWLqVDrYUx40q OEQiCQEtjAYKKrDIPlvfG21xy0MYgLhRsD4zx6Xp/G1yL4RmkG7Bg8AEB50CBNMFDqVP AD1WWf6F/rpq/elZRtAiTYSSEveTQifWKzctjksIzjnq+i2akGbhadLFqHw3lk4ehWfx ad7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=9udrJhutvdwgFk7uuEpoJfGwuFddjwsAVg2AGgSlkdM=; b=Sh0dNxnt8rKlJvOyrrQX1ispHfMN7eoBowbtZWkn7+AiIo613rb84zkXcflBzAXMFI +Gp+wT4jOMT5B5BglkS94bVnqevFQj4Mr5ubfKfwV+IPr5V6Vu2W2PW/5Ytm2wG1UyMu frrLFeeMURa9mh5s1scC/4b5t9pvZC64oLguHGy4wwtV135Fx9Q5c520TjZp/rHQFw04 mP9BeZaJ5LojmQ14clBz/bGkeIAiWBNJDBsgLAac3hDF6SJArwKILEhE5Ml2OsjbU8YK PWr23Lv6TvpQkEK1985JQfDPiBZDK3gHv7tZnKc9eorlJxHu69veZ56LeaYR1LB5mX5K 3IcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JYCiJ3oPRvWrv/Q51Bg4QvBAci9k8jg3G/AmKqWRfxCVaG3Dg 6DhgISSsmw58TJo0tZLJv2UHfKLH9xVLZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPyNehklnOn2kyoGa0SgcFVnKnCXzeF0Gp2ALNhXOqAo2Y3/5so3jszWpg57C2MTukwaGr3g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:fb97:: with SMTP id cp23mr9927935pjb.215.1609352495303; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-45-95.volcanocom.com. [107.182.45.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c62sm43417450pfa.116.2020.12.30.10.21.34 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:34 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <5588dbbe-b876-ed80-c80f-792380e3718f@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=kW_t_JkOxUud1Uz8+PrbMh5CfwfxZK=mhe0wjW8wQpw@mail.gmail.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it> <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com> <72e20c17-e991-e82a-9120-a27097e3ac58@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=6huc-N4ymDTOWZXHGjQQ-3RFDdomRzmGp4kOseHckMQ@mail.gmail.com> <7863d250-f56a-1fe1-44ee-fbc7486d48b4@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdMdaE92UOrXvcAqm2iou+PCGg_uzHUsmBsYRe1PivBJw@mail.gmail.com> <502c2363-385c-b90c-a22a-716594967190@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdP1bedYv+3MK3vrirfr5CTGvpiOxSO-zZ=9q7=Up9p0g@mail.gmail.com> <01fe63df-1960-868a-3351-08a24bb7a9cf@tana.it>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <8e1d6a24-17f4-1fa8-d90a-883e3b8e7432@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:21:33 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01fe63df-1960-868a-3351-08a24bb7a9cf@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/iN30Q02Um-PFdzgnjArIbuFvXIM>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 18:21:38 -0000

On 12/30/20 10:13 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 30/Dec/2020 17:38:29 +0100 Dotzero wrote:
>> And for the second time, that is not a DMARC problem, it is an 
>> auth-res problem.
>
>
> Standardizing the result names for dmarc authentication method is an 
> integral part of DMARC specification.
>
> Added ticket 91
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/91
>
I opened a ticket too which basically says that there should be a 
normative Authentication-Results Requirements section in the base 
specifications. That was a process error from the very beginning with 
auth-res and its weird semi-official status. I don't think it has ever 
been discussed whether it is even a protocol or not as Ned brought up 
(opened a ticket on that too).

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email