IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 09 August 2020 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 657773A0A73; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Y33E2RyC_m5I; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC733A0A66; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.69] ([172.58.75.214]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 079H1VV1013202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 9 Aug 2020 10:01:31 -0700
To: Tõnu Tammer <tonu=40cert.ee@dmarc.ietf.org>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <f82ecb18-0de8-0e36-6b76-7b937399d964@dcrocker.net> <C0FE9C52-8050-41BE-B79C-C905F9C26F93@iki.fi> <FB6E5DC4-03CF-440B-A760-B676A7850F72@iki.fi> <fefffa48-39aa-2ef5-6928-db266a403ee3@cert.ee>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <bf18fbf7-e5d6-6c37-ff46-fb2a4adb9517@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 09:58:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fefffa48-39aa-2ef5-6928-db266a403ee3@cert.ee>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ovGaEn0i4saqLt-ywZ-4guR9iGM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:58:55 -0000

On 8/9/2020 9:54 AM, Tõnu Tammer wrote:
> "Message
> transit from author to recipient is through relays that typically make
> no substantive change to the message content and thus preserve the DKIM
> signature." If this is not the case, the relay is actually violating
> DKIM standard.

However, a mailing list is not a 'relay'.  The term relay is meant to 
refer to an MTA.

Reviewing RFC 5598 might help.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email