IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] SPF follies, WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 31 March 2024 18:00 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 30926C14F6F2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="T5GdImV0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="V+bzCk3s"
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 DxmUKCS4OUCT for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 26D47C14F6E8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31733 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2024 18:00:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=7bf26609a4aa.k2403; bh=tOS1MF5GG6pdpVG0oxw6Uu5DMgPgsQ8YWiChESPsXOA=; b=T5GdImV0dUbuzIco/oMz+EpTKS659UnVMbDDfR//7/TQwnCF/Abeg/TZNwjzewWd/C3fY0Kbogb1SNqIh3oyNNeZQbIBiWOLksKXa7wHv+sqrYxhYx/XeVBDkzKRYWlo93lCFfQXqYtPhj3m+JWLjTBhpBHNyHfPmV+tYanqeYspxS5RZeZx6oqptY3HAkdIdzgd8hNvNGKCDsK6IF0AEldKI79cwNU7ugFoO7qgG79UMa8opXoixb02T3UN2WQc5QGQna21kq/rk0lS2W8Pi4J/mURA39AFCebFOAU+bbD2IlwdG00sHuDjOG8IgAS9Ea6nx1VnpJxZAndqvTLnsg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=7bf26609a4aa.k2403; bh=tOS1MF5GG6pdpVG0oxw6Uu5DMgPgsQ8YWiChESPsXOA=; b=V+bzCk3sk1RIatH/ZOYHwXtA2nLe+MnC4NinaU2ZFhZB3Euaam4pMvw5TaDq2+JRZFj40Ln4egTP2buabF+52MZdKTwNmGzc54iCXxfk3c4j0JgsGw5hIwrHrGnSPXYXIxxAOT0nE5EE6V4YA2S+euqoHoZQ6cj16qbOz8M57VvK1TS62N75NRX7li7EVr0HcXwnHD9f/tPqKDvNYEnOcsQxNQdZfXjiIEyAdkuT2tjFtMS3bWB8IIIV27efb1gv1CxUle4bBXij7Z6oysoJy+2VfoyexCvAGJ+3hM2iRHnt9NH2w7D6oSup8tI+70bIcLar1a456H1EhDjZ07Ka+g==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Mar 2024 18:00:10 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id F36CD8687B50; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 14:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 14:00:09 -0400
Message-Id: <20240331180009.F36CD8687B50@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <eda55c54-c149-475c-8117-bfdf3885a883@tekmarc.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/mzSv9HZg1x-1pGOEG7k8YzPP70U>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] SPF follies, WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:00:19 -0000

It appears that Mark Alley  <mark.alley@tekmarc.com> said:
>>   People who publish -all know what they do.
>
>I posit that there is a non-insignificant amount of domain owners that 
>don't know what the consequences of -all are other than that they've 
>been instructed to use "-all" by a guide online, ...

I'm with you.  I have had too many arguments with people whose SPF records
end with -all and insist it is everyone's fault but theirs that their mail
doesn't get delivered.

The special case of a record only containing -all, meaning they send no
mail whatsoever, is different and I don't think it's contentious.

But I still am reluctant to give people a lot of advice about how to
sent up their SPF records. This is dmarc-bis, not spf-bis.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email