[dmarc-ietf] Firing the vendor

"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==494b8ec823c==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.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 5811E3A084D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bayviewphysicians.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 WPfCDGoA_cTM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4AC3A084C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1597356570-11fa311da6bdd90001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id DzbLA2aXpop2gVqd (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=from:message-id:subject:to; bh=qRo349vaP+e8WWNy9/1O18+2uYxYdzLI8TBvUZRLfM4=; b=n+85Jb964Y2Luu+bLDoH9ZZbK8uFyW8SfYH/Mu+db3JUBjlqZyrtvU8nLqZX3pl1O nhScnGs50uKbL/RUvskrtPPp70DNq/HHBtbnGx9NfnBrvaH1C9wa3Da/MkCGS9sIo w/V22hFNFo4djqeR8jbzjaZggM7NsbMmiF2wqtjCg=
Received: by webmail.bayviewphysicians.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:09:23 -0400
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 18:09:20 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Firing the vendor
Message-ID: <291fe9b1380249bbb13bbd77234c788d@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/multipart; boundary="1a61e44d63964dddb5dbce5f067377ea"
Importance: normal
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
X-Exim-Id: 291fe9b1380249bbb13bbd77234c788d
X-Barracuda-Connect: smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1597356570
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 4869
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.81
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.81 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.83880 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.81 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY BODY: HTML has unbalanced "body" tags 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lp2gYRyYpUDJJGql3v-GxTHJuYw>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Firing the vendor
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: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 22:09:35 -0000

Yours is the better answer!DF<div>
</div><div>
</div><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message 
--------</div><div>From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 
8/13/20  5:54 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: dmarc@ietf.org 
</div><div>Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ? 
</div><div>
</div>On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:43 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:33 PM Doug Foster <fosterd=
> 40bayviewphysicians.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> The current DMARC architecture supports authorizing a vendor to mail on
>> behalf of their clients if the client includes them in their SPF policy 
or
>> delegates a DKIM scope to them and they use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that SPF is too limiting (including hard limits on complexity),
>> and DKIM is too complex for an uncooperative vendor.
>>
>>
>>
>> In most cases, a solution would be a controlled third-party signature
>> authorization along the lines of RFC 6541.
>>
>> The client would configure the authorization in his own DNS and the and
>> the vendor would only need to sign with their own DKIM signature.
>>
>
> If "DKIM is too complex for [this] uncooperative vendor", why would 
having
> the "vendor...sign with...DKIM" be workable?
>

Wrong answer. If the vendor is uncooperative then fire the vendor. 4-5
years ago it was difficult to find vendors who were willing to deal with
DKIM and able to do a good job in implementing. The common mantra was "how
does this fit into my business model". These days I would consider it 
table
stakes.

Michael Hammer

>
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc