IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 04 February 2021 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 B6D793A165C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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=iecc.com header.b=GF33uJ9H; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=e2dUk91F
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 E5FygwQ75LIn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 252813A1657 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 58425 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2021 16:43:07 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=e437.601c241b.k2102; bh=ZC2VK1pb1rmnOir0zaHXAiXyWU+pYw94sZ3ec4lAQUk=; b=GF33uJ9H0zQ3cXg+Bti+Kvu2uy9SQbMqERbxYU1g6qUCh0Vd/aA332pvb5CdRvd98GNKHgCChv7L1S2gPIsS6NQcdBungzv6DeOVaAlT7lYwp7AFQNPRd+Fqiq+bj+YFkBVc3KwJRWeoltZtWWS7HEPimvzZF2uBgC61w1GGBCsNnKbVoo3IrKBx8g04HDfYbAflDWlKwxvcTsbV/4bLq+fT51ZoDNK8HZx3roQcndGka3Daua3jAB+xNs+OlhftkYYh6X4AaeiEeZi2qqLvxIXWzN8sbMhRU0HzBvm2JPa09xvt8KSZHrjLiCiX4xtCyNcyBamGIMKsBv0/XdCkQw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=e437.601c241b.k2102; bh=ZC2VK1pb1rmnOir0zaHXAiXyWU+pYw94sZ3ec4lAQUk=; b=e2dUk91FqNHX/pDGd9wU1dzVr8TQEsAfy20g621YbpBvxefd/kssxJfoNApcLgapMw7nO0yte+N78OHPpGWci1cKGj6vMueDF+HJxR6wGcP7iww+OK0BgKRSTv0vyiTHSne6/y9hwpMCj+s3vQr9ue//eAJiduCOlfriEWByDRHaJhM6N8S89VvO5HQDtsQOCnIYQWXKiEBdgSo0aI9NRlarysazHhVkxUJwkKAgVtlzn9eEACm5Zs5GTWvPrVpJI1MsYbbQPkszFrhNry6kTYKSGPTiC3y0j5bamnqdhSnDQbnjlH5yFTV7BYiQvUA35Q7wpgKQPqTrTYmSEqJXfw==
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 (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 04 Feb 2021 16:43:07 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8B4C16D5F662; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4082B6D5F644; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 11:43:06 -0500
Message-ID: <b9c3487-44ed-a132-d42-47364fd819b4@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <e169f069-376d-7072-2538-c77bbe7b7540@tana.it>
References: <20210203181226.9AB746D51182@ary.qy> <e169f069-376d-7072-2538-c77bbe7b7540@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/pB2rBLgvKxsHpmUF9OXHCDBrqJw>
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:43:12 -0000

I really do not see anything to change here, and we have a lot of other 
tickets to work on.  Please, can we stop and close this one?


> On Wed 03/Feb/2021 19:12:26 +0100 John Levine wrote:
>> In article <b396cf21-05f4-a1a4-5abc-78c5aa276473@tana.it> you write:
>>> On Tue 02/Feb/2021 20:13:42 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
>>>> It's existing practice and I see no reason to change it.
>>> 
>>> Software changes all the time.  If we change, ...
>> 
>> Urrgh. There are still MTAs that haven't been updated from RFC 821. If
>> you want a real standard, the closer you can make it to what the
>> running code does, the most likely it will work.
>
>
> How about this:
>
>    NOTE: Historically, SPF was focused on the mfrom identifier.  The helo
>    identifier was retrofitted later, in order to account for delivery status
>    notifications.  Earlier DMARC specifications followed suit. 
> Subsequently,
>    it turned out that SPF records for the helo identifier are actually 
> sharper
>    than those for mfrom, thereby making successful helo verifications very
>    reliable.  However, in the vast majority of cases the mfrom identifier is
>    aligned with the main DMARC identifier, while the helo identifier often
>    does not have a corresponding SPF record.  Therefore, the common practice
>    of using just the SPF result of mfrom unless empty is still a valid
>    heuristic.
>
> ?
>
>
> Best
> Ale
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email