IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Debugging and preventing DKIM failures- suggestion

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 31 May 2019 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 EBFFA12004F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=QLuLXbmE; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=CCoaMCF3
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 PxCSeGpjx3LN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 0FEEA1200DB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68266 invoked from network); 31 May 2019 13:50:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10aa6.5cf13131.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=wNRzFxaLKkJcNaV6euhSYAVmZ8F8alaYKlOq+CI2hNU=; b=QLuLXbmE1ZD8XXNwtJhpS2o+T/RyRoDQD0RuBB3Nn2v05Zxmb21YWAZtt2t3AR9SLdb+l/q+Rm94RT/FJcWgeKjibiwHEHKeN4UjieUnhAcRbxCs5JjteL6R1m0sVSeE4UAb3GEm2dvJPQKeTsuRoOn9NjNAHXy2VxL+ZSQLk93/F0iEiAS7WZ9n6KaU6jRYTSRGAB0WwOKdsx7kCzqNCTjpHAdwRc3nmeE4s36+Jssrml+vEmkmLB+pi0XJwUtH
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=10aa6.5cf13131.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=wNRzFxaLKkJcNaV6euhSYAVmZ8F8alaYKlOq+CI2hNU=; b=CCoaMCF39x1AvQ/959vKAJNRo6H95uPMjlYzEKjYrpfpzoLOP9N2iqAl/M+72WKMVZNuUn/wmUAbl7RlCFuG7gRiQTqTizK1522LqPX1iz+yOZvv7YCJGt/r2NBhMkzOu3SZ0RFwur3+pCrDPNCvt/u0sT5HDHWqKwqgGKUYujWm3jsZwRn5G6CWTrFZjyTEGPKCHCqahg86nD0Okpvlvg65NKtaUTfIfQyN/5CLr3gH04IY/pg4OOc250KtwRjs
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 31 May 2019 13:50:41 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id DE8FB2014DA9DA; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:50:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 09:50:40 -0400
Message-Id: <20190531135040.DE8FB2014DA9DA@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <000001d517a9$8c4f5960$a4ee0c20$@bayviewphysicians.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lXs6ILNNVNRu-f88CnU2z3qEdL0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Debugging and preventing DKIM failures- suggestion
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, 31 May 2019 13:50:46 -0000

In article <000001d517a9$8c4f5960$a4ee0c20$@bayviewphysicians.com> you write:
>  I am aware that the DKIM specification says to treat an
>unverifiable signature as a non-signature.   This is not a sufficient reason
>to release your own organization's signatures onto the internet when you can
>or should know that they will fail validation. 

Not to belabor the obvious, but the spec says what it says even if you
personally wish it said something else.  The way to make systems
interoperate is to implement the actual spec.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email