IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 31 March 2024 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 D3EC4C14F69C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSP8HmvKF6Py for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 5A8CBC14F693 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a46daa53584so131557366b.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711925259; x=1712530059; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dReymMk4fuOP2e9MD/xOtbieDoMvRVVyqANrs0ay6/Q=; b=e4eLubV1Py6ZQqtXCdXH9gXFaRNJRX0kqRdGl7BXlN24PMi2zW04TmPUn++eFEad28 KUQIQU7vWfZHwxH/HtwMhNAmvWvHYnUcHAV7jqdo8l89u/o5NkXJCPxgJ2oWiJTemA6l bRIx1ek8zeP/ghMU7oCriQ41pYVRnmRqDeNtsuZVcl9rZb6wUyHaymch33s9hRrDANo8 +8FHcJQnhMU5W4DqkRSEwZu30KCY062YzTqBeL4cwLxJcSBufymmmjvxKauianvWP8+d yRIVa9nO0L7WTpqrikUjIygKzjz2EUO2QI6ebhNYiBWtqLloeCsHqeB78iEllz7qPviF l8zw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711925259; x=1712530059; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dReymMk4fuOP2e9MD/xOtbieDoMvRVVyqANrs0ay6/Q=; b=dSwRh435ei4HlQmJiAhYunC4YizWk78QR6u7NX2DLdnA6zyuwmm/mC79LCZUxkqYVP ppw/4pOA61Um/aCuyUMoS1iuqTRbilMzMpjZqRoZmm7fKIPLmpPq0hU/sD3uXC5QNtLD 2QqHVRUn8NT8fXW5krS8v7SHCtluQeX409iLPkafMFqC+TtMkV0MqoX07vMVhmyDZLGv 0Mi4ihBRrKPNYIc1Mq69S1kFjxxH9cjxsbSgZjjjKDOaJPqXna6FA1ucqltSi9jqYEfi EhzW+5CRiVv5FPc0CAVSnugCva/HIjtscCp1kLdALucouA3d2Q4jWrKQGjkIfA/ZGaRe JGVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxVyzSztMT8IT8wZ6vvBv8aLJIG0LAP+kYgnWYolJhQfc2fZNjg UrljVcwKR7u7lxgVZyvhoKQU0Zx6XC2nOamfzwgG+hyJlbVMVWI4hU6thap3gn4is4wMYGYGow0 AXPxULQO/t5NGeNuvmhrQrNOg042/gFlNsVM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFwUtVUmvedn23fa6Q6R4yRkOI3JpMdsTQDtpItgI50bipe9WY817KVl2ohCRssHJzEUvRZ4OQRpuZjKdoYpuE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4684:b0:a46:8be0:4f64 with SMTP id a4-20020a170906468400b00a468be04f64mr4324303ejr.5.1711925258614; Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <eda55c54-c149-475c-8117-bfdf3885a883@tekmarc.com> <20240331180009.F36CD8687B50@ary.qy> <CAOZAAfP9tXi80Fi=ZkgPpGwHo1fDbdSOZwVcnuPDbbc2xQd-7A@mail.gmail.com> <lIU60SB3NeCmFAG+@highwayman.com>
In-Reply-To: <lIU60SB3NeCmFAG+@highwayman.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:47:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZt+bo4ydCVOQbfg6bQEv-ufXrrwr8Aege9Wsv7LgH=kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebfefd0614fca8bb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/pveQLgQuQbRNfFiW7gFN2kwweUs>
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 22:47:42 -0000

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 3:28 PM Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In message <CAOZAAfP9tXi80Fi=ZkgPpGwHo1fDbdSOZwVcnuPDbbc2xQd-
> 7A@mail.gmail.com>, Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> writes
>
> >    Some Mail Receiver architectures implement SPF in advance of any
> >    DMARC operations. This means that an SPF hard fail ("-") prefix on
> >    a sender's SPF mechanism, such as "-all", could cause that
> >    rejection to go into effect early in handling, causing message
> >    rejection before any DMARC processing takes place, and DKIM has a
> >    chance to validate the message instead of SPF. Operators choosing
> >    to use "-all" to terminate SPF records should be aware of this.
>
> I understood what this said thus far ... but I wonder what it is doing
> in a document about DMARC.   Some architectures may reject email from
> IPs listed in the PBL ... again nothing to do with DMARC. This isn't a
> document on how to improve deliverability is it ?
>

I don't understand the link being made here between operational details and
deliverability.  I understand this to be pointing out that if you do any
short circuiting, DMARC can't be evaluated.  That includes any early
rejection, be that based on SPF results, DKIM signature failures, domain
reputation rejections, or anything of the sort.

Mind you, I'm a little worried about anyone that plans to rely seriously on
DMARC yet to whom this isn't relatively obvious.  You need those results
before DMARC can even begin, and the DKIM result comes only after the body
arrives.

-MSK, p11g

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email