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

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.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 5B29E3A0E2C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NEcKz_JA0vgF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FC723A0E23 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id v8so8833043vso.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 19:20:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O7Gyaett9f4KoVdDPd0ZMZLuObHz62ka+y7au9BhMEQ=; b=ZKv28nwoqRxgHVVOK58JDDAPLs6xn1SGUsKJHfdBW00yvSgyu8JgyR5Vyl+n5Q0Tto 47atXd9IZWN+G+50u1Vimmt4QUw3PWf2uRNLOyTKUbbAfkz+u9wwbsMIqaKFH3OHaEc7 U/4Dug4Ff/OIQaKeK7RxCWss9QLZFg79mzajBPG1dfyA8Mhr7Gtq21GINMkO/EGCHUEO wXmc7g7EGmjCgc1UKBYIVRHWiVoy6V+lDHDg0S2us6cTG9O4Ru6BQeW9LnJq7rhvwcP+ /UNeUENBl9QX4X6CZZU2UoBA0u65eoe8NrnStflVLuN//SmvpIvx+LO+yruyKrnGzhLP F8bA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O7Gyaett9f4KoVdDPd0ZMZLuObHz62ka+y7au9BhMEQ=; b=hcWOiSzwQXdGL1/pai1Sy6m5P1r4RziS9mcNLHb7kvgxT7EpQIGs1ib/bPxXQ2TUSV FzTNYzWXyEbALxBBF1TTr+1dpMVEnYrZAuG4mLyH+H7wn6L+x955EGIzJhUura6ZvuOp SBVMTmUcrXSyp1fA6RvJzNY4dGKU9YV4ThpHY+AMLHDRcIb0EjMuEt6I/hBYIAmpgP64 zNkEfk3GoTW+UE3lCvgCmal5Wv56gojaER2N6FWrvdi6W0KUDXfk8wKXry/yi9y4oUHN MA5Nsl+iF6wrmBlRNEAr50RicgDLMQ5Csc2NpQEGs8/ZglnKpeS6WBUQflZggKc8J8O4 aunQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320Syr9n/ZOH1SeqxoDOERaZ3C8n6WEv15RTXr8myRy7Fpo1pKI kmccO7qJNWfwqnCENfEQCibINMGUtABqI+UbSmE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxag2Zh0p222xAHRik39oPMxHyXsnujPbobnm4NBA5jvgl8MjV/1bi8VIAyN6IaREflOoy4CHgOMg6Rh294krQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed19:: with SMTP id l25mr14935010vsp.59.1607397629764; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 19:20:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bef64e7a-571b-a73f-dc91-aa402ca320c8@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwY-X9B6MT03dCYE6WnYOLvBjtiU1e0K6XTbFHY0LwzW-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYcY-tYjd0nWB1yTScWDewJDREBB4oGEMAq4ZHH5jR=aWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYcY-tYjd0nWB1yTScWDewJDREBB4oGEMAq4ZHH5jR=aWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:20:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48Zfw_W8h-Z-j2NMD_t16e2nefyGXiPkhGFqWa0BFSriXysg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc2acc05b5eb6c34"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/mfDdyngOE8lGOciNkBLASggDFK8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 03:20:34 -0000

Is there an identifiable attack vector which can be based on using the
(forward confirmed) HELO name for SPF pass?

If not, why change?



On Mon, Dec 7, 2020, 6:09 AM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:13 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:17 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so
>>> short
>>> trenchant comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Ticket #1 is about SPF alignment.  We need to replace references to 4408
>>> with 7408, ando clarify what if anything we do with SPF HELO checks if
>>> the MAIL FROM is null.  One possibility is to say only MAIL FROM SPF
>>> counts, if you want to align your bounces, sign them.  The other is to
>>> explicitly say that HELO alignment is OK on bounces.
>>>
>>
>> I have a slight preference for the first option.  HELO is too arbitrary
>> in the protocol for me to put much value in using it in any of these
>> systems.
>>
>> -MSK
>>
>
> +1
>
> Michael Hammer
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>