IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sat, 10 June 2023 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 49AA4C15155A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:55:24 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b="ancXNY0v"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b="qjVb3/ic"
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 zI02ma0EzEJ8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (mail.winserver.com [3.137.120.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 87834C14CE39 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 17:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2310; t=1686358511; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:Subject:Date: Message-Id:To:Organization:List-ID; bh=oiVMRNw2W141JxMDFnluShOgN DWBsfqtoPLUeeZpGQU=; b=ancXNY0vjeW9+eq2t9gQHfFY7icDcyeRZkzNdQr4/ Yngi9CDlMhiSEBGK6FWtUFN/xOs30PnsrqzE2gez8A8WZrFpPyi5E2VZxyNhLYmB EBV0L8pc3jLPqYpvvsS4UiT8u7Blk4PsHLn0/AGVPmSENEkGKSuceClmhQt4/mJH TQ=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.13) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:55:11 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=none author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([3.132.92.116]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.13) with ESMTP id 2456250364.1.2828; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:55:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2310; t=1686358506; h=Received:Received:From: Subject:Date:Message-Id:To:Organization:List-ID; bh=oiVMRNw2W141 JxMDFnluShOgNDWBsfqtoPLUeeZpGQU=; b=qjVb3/icuIQFVI+27BPFyq40tXqs k85higrR9+QbdOcK4L7CnR3L9F3jpMpNZlDqAtbByw8pO0TA3FCQVopIzpH3PNN8 tSFyvsVB03PlpCoNDH4fLJG3QPc/c3FKczxtxPQ7onnQp0NTOEYsbSnXoppUYmgV bCsTrzby9SLP0IY=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.12) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:55:06 -0400
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([99.122.210.89]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.12) with ESMTP id 2902298927.1.5348; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:55:05 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:54:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLQKSZNBBV=T5xFvReQo+YS=r9nvpwO9Ld5-KKsir9jnw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <30BB83B2-B454-41B8-992B-8E2569802D9C@1und1.de> <CAL0qLwbx6Y=kmB5pQZx8gNqD=rLBYz1vLOX6ngL=wUHHUm0Hjw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz3jo6Jy7ByfS9EM8Luy5atEtuTMtvDfYuo56Gj9ryRcw@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+obaK85BhemSBTJTxJCjMn++1vcTs8RyGJW5XCrtAHeg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLn1eMLKOuEDARyD8smV7frZPXhU5rn4Uq_Oyh43djzjw@mail.gmail.com> <05589B27-AB12-4186-AF2E-EB5002332DD8@icloud.com> <CALaySJLQKSZNBBV=T5xFvReQo+YS=r9nvpwO9Ld5-KKsir9jnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B042C5BA-4DE3-4CBE-BD6F-EBEC983D0114@isdg.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
X-Comment: Missing recipient address appended by wcSMTP router.
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/r3tBeHLdKjAss8d-ZaM6IZzERDU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 00:55:24 -0000

Barry,

Whoa! Take it easy.  

We are on the DMARC2 thread per topic - a proposal. Not anything for the current DMARCbis. 

Is the chair suggesting the current charter for DMARCbis should change to remove SPF? Was the charter changed for this?

To be clear, DMARC2 is not DMARCbis right now, are you wishing this now?

Hector


> On Jun 9, 2023, at 8:27 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> Hector, did you not understand this?:
> 
>>> We will *not* consider what should happen to
>>> SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for
>>> this working group under its current charter.
> 
> Please stop discussing it.
> 
> Barry
> 
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:23 PM Hector Santos <sant9442@icloud.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jun 9, 2023, at 4:41 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Repeating this one point as chair, to make it absolutely clear:
>>> 
>>> The proposal we're discussing is removing SPF authentication from
>>> DMARC evaluation *only*.  We will *not* consider what should happen to
>>> SPF outside of DMARC, and any discussion of that is *out of scope* for
>>> this working group under its current charter.
>>> 
>>> Barry, as chair
>> 
>> For the record,  from a long time SMTP implementer standpoint, DMARC would be ignored, dropped, turned off, etc first before any consideration to stop SPF support.   As a Transporter, SPF works. As an Administrator - ADSP, I mean “Supper ADSP” aka DMARC has been horrible.  I, and most people, could easily deprecate Wildcat! DMARC with no harm and fact, less harm because the false positives will disappear.  My product add-on for wcSMTP, wcDMARC, never did honor the p=reject|quarantine. It was left for filters and no one hard any confidence to make it work.
>> 
>> SPF on the other hand, I don’t see dropped in the name of DMARC.  So if it’s about sparate, but not abandon, that I can support - because it is already separate.  SPF preempts DMARC or any Payload protocol..
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email