IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 21 April 2023 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 21A15C151B30 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="qiGgnxH0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="RtvTGa8S"
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 L5K1NGwwFUrx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 B3583C15155E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D730F8029A; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 23:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1682048467; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=Crc4SViqghVRwnLC0xg7rQExpEwTvUwdokgzielsbYQ=; b=qiGgnxH0HHv9Cs+cpMNE6/cUf/4XgVc7QiIXYMMKGsc00iVdcnl8gp5EKeMmyqDuw1ZrR wbKGSwo99lSxUT3AQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1682048467; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=Crc4SViqghVRwnLC0xg7rQExpEwTvUwdokgzielsbYQ=; b=RtvTGa8SxzqVW0yd+SqmhcM/DcVQecWQ4lUQWj8CmAp1ayE55m4KZ5Iyze/Vs2UVoPXrc g47zhSSM5XrCz0UIr2etTgtagSUtYJ2nIZ9qM/scqODTYABvYLMw2L/WBDVqKHdsCDrqyg3 6ItMtFpH90k7gRwxKR0IoLUjKeVfSSJxcsUXdwmwWE6UGMqM+EsvlefC9PtNKrE3HSZXggH f88Owv9Qy3OgISfJOQvcKpZaXx5AlA2/HgvEJsSO7pQkBwbkjVu/es6JWNVgpKJDDoO/qZ+ 9olOme4uSh9vhbWG7BNYw2TQNOg4q0+0m8FUbG0eNCyGzJ8Kq5aKL4sTXNSg==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDB05F801A2; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 23:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:41:03 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYeyoOYeXW1QN+yeMbxt4SF7Kn2Xi=FP7VmX4MhKiDi9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0abf9711-ca1c-bfcf-afb2-15e16b9de149@tana.it> <20230420153727.DB568C106CE9@ary.qy> <CAJ4XoYeyoOYeXW1QN+yeMbxt4SF7Kn2Xi=FP7VmX4MhKiDi9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3D9E708-EDC7-43BC-AE5E-DF4FFAECCC2B@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lPr09g80VM0W6MsMU1PvzB-BnJo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 03:41:41 -0000


On April 20, 2023 4:18:08 PM UTC, Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>> >IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better
>> you
>> >have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase,
>> expanding a
>> >bit the first bullet in Section 11.4.  That can also be a good place to
>> explain
>> >the kind of damage DMARC causes.
>>
>> Absolutely not. This sort of thing is utterly outside the scope of our
>> job and wasting time on it just further delays our already extremely
>> late work.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>
>+1
>
>There are many things John and I may disagree on but he clearly understands
>why avoiding scope creep (and bad ideas) is important.

Definitely agree with both of you on this.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email