Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 21 October 2019 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6578A120096 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.402
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wWdALL0ubPdl for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6092B120043 for <>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1571669674; bh=kJSPWFqeT8Xe2MIsLtGh2oQyZmIOU25IDjdjcsfvgGw=; l=994; h=References:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C09Aqmkj97EM2Ho/Hw4ibKmPpM6UOxAswO2E1noYrJR/gh467KVgXmM24Z32YJtSN 8+LWXWYp5/bPKBIQGt8nycuJfacOJNh68xY1AKlsFEsTxYZUJc6SCv/I8BKiJN9V7l 7b4AG+6w37C+i8/XHDth7CgQWZRm2fGEzGY6/SAagBhX4q/51Y+5JcKIhzPWT
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC077.000000005DADC6AA.00005DFA; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:54:34 +0200
References: <> <> <> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:54:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:41 -0000

On Wed 07/Aug/2019 17:16:29 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> If the definition of ptype smtp were "a parameter of the SMTP session used
>> to relay the message" it would be perfect.  I'd propose that policy.iprev
>> be deprecated and smtp.remote-ip used instead>>
> Given that RFC8601 was published just last month, it'll probably be a while
> before this happens.

Wouldn't an accepted erratum be enough to change the wording in the IANA page?

About the new ptype, a reviewer suggested to also use it to report whether the
query supported DNSSEC.  No DNSWL that I know supports it.  However, I know
some DKIM filters report that feature either as a comment or as a reason in the
dkim= methodspec.  Using the new ptype might make that clearer.  Consider:

      dkim=pass dns.sec=yes header.b=j5aQ3SJv

What you think?