IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 03 June 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 9D0B73A0CF4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 tyRFh8hRA-5F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 EB42A3A0CB8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1591204837; bh=ABYSET0h5YWtPfbzGVPggyuPO3Q8eaZfJR2ioHV0IK0=; l=719; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BTsaGrAPtW+tf5MAc2yd/0rOfG5IZjYNcMTEPDH7EN+okn+7M5Eb2EC9CwYfbYJyK uyWu6o6TmRjuotTt8LiFljxTyMxPccedDvz9VMfy7YJy2zKWbXz2RUZd/EHrL5jj9j L6S3ippKkjDslKTLKi1yERbsqgqL6pnfUpk2/fipFecmPLDN92FBepVFVu5BP
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC08B.000000005ED7DBE4.00001A8E; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <DM5PR0601MB367115AD49513EAF3953716CF68B0@DM5PR0601MB3671.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <18441e8d-cf87-053e-4957-7b9d6ea9690c@gmail.com> <ff98e267-8e7b-2015-cc1b-7061d04097d8@tana.it> <71b7426b-4619-fd50-4038-3418f3181b1d@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <2d1d4b31-ad19-db95-b32d-f89c914195a5@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <71b7426b-4619-fd50-4038-3418f3181b1d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qMLdXdT4CSjZ5a5aMuiHcCqq_O8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 17:20:50 -0000

On Wed 03/Jun/2020 18:43:16 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/3/2020 9:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> MUAs should be discouraged from displaying or using Author:, unless
>> (verifiably) signed by a trusted domain or otherwise configured by the user.
> 
> Why?


That avoids the dreaded back-to-square-one path that Brandon conjectured.  It
prevents attacks based on this field, while maintaining the DMARC paradigm.

I, for example, would configure to display Author: in the listing of
[dmarc-ietf] and similar folders.  Reply-to-Author would also be a useful
button, if not abused.  It's fine to fulfill advanced users' wishes as long as
average user behavior is not forced to change.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email