Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 77780126C2F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:52:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=fastmailteam.com header.b=jRqRiZ6u; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Hf5F2boj
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 K6xMYbwENCVu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:52:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F5C120454 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:52:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF3C20DE9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:52:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web6 ([10.202.2.216]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Jan 2018 01:52:50 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date :from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=rqZwsum8Tl/De7oEU yTUViCQWvDI5YQXwRog7toaacE=; b=jRqRiZ6udzFnBIywCl0rQLucWlhYpC6t6 0MWzpFmmj2rE13c5FjldCtO3E+1mLORVpTzZC9ga2oksCdcX4/eJ2Tu7tMHEsBgq Yp6zWjZaHvlWOxY6dhzM+teymVzvvaFoVjrBgW86BYm4ZraFKA+lDzMtY08h8Dgy b7WXKkGB1GPgLKUp/WHP5nDS5wbhzBL0tFQw4nAma7Za3IpAzQOhuArPJVyT9x3B PcAvedjiAHlDWmF956cF3YhL+nWuoNRGT0OzbAeTcfPrg8+vscklW7WcAZBw7xUu 0MwMWTAXdxPBP4/eggfvHKWZDSA+cNV8aa7Q6F2QEeU384IjYRVAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=rqZwsu m8Tl/De7oEUyTUViCQWvDI5YQXwRog7toaacE=; b=Hf5F2boj5GhGq7oz//cvkt mIZvJR2ns2Vzz8GqzaiJsZMkrMF6Tz1tqrTW2CdMTc88Z/NzhTIVoVzFzEFgzfmV TtQm8gCQ4+r4eEN1EGOQYQprMmmXR93ImsdS5+I7AHQzanU/ZQVDPGkZ3G2fLReb fBJuNOtaCvjQv5dv0VB33X2QGkBb8/ezFKOpT8b+Dcd0EqbOsKtqKhSaqDqwmmXx dEEw3NFvh7SyCk3SOa7CfzIPN8R8NntNYrxXoBqkM7F397iAYAMXxjrhdzU1iDEp ShKRDpY9a6d2n1It9fNXVcBK3ycxwAv53rw+rxR+WH22WJO+4LwNRRSUUAbabv8A ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wiBPWsJFG5HJ7po9ssp0QRHNmtAg-Jerb_iZyffKyEGp059ZCtQwtw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 5E9A0425A; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:52:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1515135170.791502.1224976560.5E5B35AA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_15151351707915022"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-1d83f2c7
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZfxmBoM=Yq6dAAfe=BqD2A0xGWRTGho_rbX6dw_szdKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:52:50 +1100
References: <CABuGu1pBqv9uPQg7_XR42cUCE4x4rWbN2hgxx7ZAbWugHT6zkg@mail.gmail.com> <1514939995.3318165.1222346488.5B169072@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CABuGu1o5sYiLXQSBcUdY6fiBQuO6P+fwTXD5BAR1wsieGO237A@mail.gmail.com> <1515021640.3106167.1223502368.3DB28018@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CABuGu1pv3kdhnbi3mxB2wNp2T6GafTUngR+NpZBoXaJRrQ1B-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZfxmBoM=Yq6dAAfe=BqD2A0xGWRTGho_rbX6dw_szdKg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qQDuinXnvFTAeDTucuvL73coVgI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Clarifying the value of arc.closest-fail
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 06:52:53 -0000

Instance number please.  Less calculation.


On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, at 16:18, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Bron Gondwana
>> <brong@fastmailteam.com> wrote:>>> __
>>> I assume this was the one that you wanted my clarification on?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, thanks
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But let's rewrite it as oldest-pass, because that's clearer.
>>> Your case:>>> 
>>> 
>>> * ARC 1: cv=none, ams.oldest-pass=0
>>> * ARC 2: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=1
>>> * ARC 3: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=2
>>> * ARC 4: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=3
>>> * final recipient ADMD ARC verifier would find cv=pass and evaluate
>>>   ams.oldest-pass as 4.>>> 
>>> And my case where 2 and 3 didn't change anything:
>>> 
>>> * ARC 1: cv=none, ams.oldest-pass=0
>>> * ARC 2: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=1
>>> * ARC 3: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=1
>>> * ARC 4: cv=pass, ams.oldest-pass=1
>>> * final recipient ADMD ARC verifier would find cv=pass and evaluate
>>>   ams.oldest-pass as 4.>>> 
>>> From which the final recipient can also see that, if they trust ARC
>>> 4 not to lie, neither ARC 2 or ARC 3 changed anything which was
>>> covered by ARC 1's AMS.>>> 
>>> There is no need to trust either ARC 2 or ARC 3's signatures in my
>>> example, which is the point here.  Even if ARC 2 or ARC 3 are not
>>> yet known or trusted, you can tell that they didn't modify this
>>> particular message.>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Very helpful - thanks. I think that expressing it in the positive "oldest-
>> pass" form makes the point much clearer. Unless there is an outcry
>> from the rest of the group, I'd like to change to this terminology.> 
> Just to be clear, we're saying "*.oldest-pass" will contain the
> instance number of the most recent AMS that passed?  Or is it the
> distance from the verifier to the most recent passing ADMD?> 
> -MSK
> _________________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com