IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 25 September 2020 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 33CE83A09BC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ErrFJyUs6GMI for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 5A7AF3A0B4F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 08PN8XHf015370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:08:34 -0700
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
References: <20200815225306.967CC1E9E41D@ary.local> <4004580.HQKp4RnRq6@zini-1880> <63f00819-b798-c967-16a4-69bbb0881780@dcrocker.net> <6089649.VB6F1bvo3X@zini-1880>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <159dc0da-0f34-fa71-e20f-89135f14182e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:05:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6089649.VB6F1bvo3X@zini-1880>
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/iOFiRmliAokVVXP6skwQCHqxsb0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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, 25 Sep 2020 23:05:48 -0000

On 9/25/2020 4:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> In my view the linkage between the identity in From to domains authenticated
> by DKIM and SPF (d= and mail from) is a fundamental property of DMARC.  If you
> change that, it's not DMARC anymore.


It doesn't change that.  It doesn't alter the current use of the From: 
field.

Mediators might, and so far people have thought that acceptable.

My suggestion is that you offer some detailed analysis of current 
security-related processing and specify how that will change to the worse.

The tendency for these topics is for people to make overly-terse, 
overly-broad assertions and conclusions, without any of the detail that 
permits validating the claim.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email