Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Douglas Foster <> Sun, 07 February 2021 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F321F3A086E for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 04:34:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5eBuKRha-ye for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 04:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64FC93A085E for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 04:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b10so6108704vsa.8 for <>; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 04:34:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/gk2wIvcN4pb8ROBAsGYQ5ncmz1eEioSzPkq9GwvKFo=; b=XNR3XPxFTyHD64jdM+wchYarH+qxE7LdXYQUg+TJXt+/HatNTgo0AljXN0xkq1iytt Szzfg0+lSRzW8w4lYN1JIT5EqQ6gJn37L0quK3GacBGZ9lN45w3gVRBlnYChspe1yCJI TwSB5jDY6pEqqJfmiwBeGkhtSa7X6GbcVjQGFn0xchRpUG/Nj1FpCjc3N9KjPt9QPRtG 0WUnmO1qNLln6rS6TddhU7ilt32bxvQdiHrYHynwDimuKtxLfK8uIjfDZE3gU9lr9HGo jErndeSxKMtzlbfNsADuJ/uHmY3Y13WwNFlWKg8/OjJ35kzfIeyYbsE+Db1/cmpn2B1x SVFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/gk2wIvcN4pb8ROBAsGYQ5ncmz1eEioSzPkq9GwvKFo=; b=ldHjpl8uDqNY3eF032d3YJptSjovXCMoJfM68f2lE2ZoEq07sEqagjDRBiOQ6CSsJB E/w9QC8l0YDk5hYvscucoOjtVMMveoS7Zu69NQsE9CALAMo+FFSNnUVD2PYk/pB1OBOR HGmijOmpZGabwvR1aNauwBTm/fE8QvosZkqbOAnfMZazwEQS1VxC2ah8cJDU0OkC7FoX Db2vWz/g2xuBkgN4x8saGtptMby5rr2p/9c8JBHZ1Elc9XnUQyTEPxlYzyYvLVxaJxNC iVuEzOMMoYupsBBfud4U20BrmdIcdSUd4ny9OSfznbf0hJs/2h0dbrbA3pcFLM3Je32v e1DQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532v6K1AdUetTtLocQ7yWkw50srtQ46WGKpbKvO0gT74aDOgyGZp awCg+a60w89NGk3HTLgBnwgs1FOaIPCea4QX14pMiMtDSw8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH/nZF+F9JyhjGqrfInM7+9yjw2bT/YNbTGwPeKKlOsPVPkzEXFg2u8Qm5ZADFkLMk7ZZ5uOS2nv585fDISFg=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:87c2:: with SMTP id j185mr7933699vsd.25.1612701284300; Sun, 07 Feb 2021 04:34:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210203181226.9AB746D51182@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Douglas Foster <>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 07:34:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002dfadb05babe47bb"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 12:34:47 -0000

"We have a lot of other topics" is the wrong reason to call for consensus.
 The important question is "Ale, have we addressed your concerns?"

I agree with many that for DMARC, our primary interest is whether SPF
validation of MAILFROM produces a PASS.

However, I also see that a cautious recipient may choose to also require
SPF HELO = PASS and / or fcDNS HELO = PASS ( VERIFIED ).   Getting a PASS
on these multiple criteria increases the confidence in the PASS result, but
also increases the likelihood of ambiguous results and false rejects.
 - Recipients need to be cautious about enforcing rules so strictly that
sender configuration errors produce unwanted disposition decisions.
 - Senders need to be careful to ensure that they configure their policy to

Altogether, I think some wordsmithing is needed to communicate those
points.   I do not have such wording at this moment, but will begin
thinking about what I would propose.   Perhaps those who are anxious to
move on will be able to produce text sooner.

I have also raised a concern about the inadequacy of reporting these
results, since "Recevied-SPF: pass" is currently a compliant header.   We
can defer this issue to a later ticket, but we need to be thinking about
the problem.   If this requires no change, I would like some discussion of
why that might be the case.


On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 8:16 PM Dave Crocker <> wrote:

> On 2/6/2021 3:57 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> >
> > +1 - now, if only we had a real voting system :-P
> Yeah, 'cause this one is really close, and it's hard to tell what the
> decision is...
> d/
> ps.  +1
> --
> Dave Crocker
> 408.329.0791
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list