IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 05:16 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 EF2F6124217 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 tG26_3hY_2j4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2E33126C2F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i40so4540435qti.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YayicYehkZlJU2qdwSKhlxkJtJ3mwPHhnf9DnZuXKk0=; b=YXaMCCLKZfuIN2QDjoEh4SGUnF7sFiv2PABmWGJ+KdeyGxGNfB4ImFkD5/a6l/Zj3X F9BuvsbS2CFDQ9OkJS0t+etUu+PQeeL8DR3N0Z2Ybplil2hZ/xeW1ScmV5/2FXBDRRlK t++zEbLXAFK/95H6ob8xGohkzNifpE+GUiySmDBxIw+mzjb/n1to70HRm5Eh1kEfhWtf IiQdl7TgtV/ZyvQSOff2LHYlsOPwXkLJkHkU6fWvZh/AiLZ1Y9TZ8rrViWYHAjE8gc31 LcIEuaIT7QK3czKByoa04AUAUS1+Jc6B+daFXK1qJnkQl/VY0DZklVYojLKVcWIS+m1x O0mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YayicYehkZlJU2qdwSKhlxkJtJ3mwPHhnf9DnZuXKk0=; b=SBPVhA2d+SRJa/FU7bTIa0wtieZPZgbEwFO1UoOra7Zxym680jW8KPJCQUdavIs2uH rT02BomcmeXl/oghfSguL13NIYI1a06D/4jiELtTccXmFrphzTh0hPAmigTs/PUcNEsC Mw4dh6uZYS3HV1cnhZeNKaNN+YAPOh7ybDkqNbv6dAlOPMjSAE0WmyuK9jqGMVpV+bMW WTITrWp+e0EFqEO5XKtCWy8bu3qSUKN5S6PCsZH9GHNeZ6ZL+Jm8L+i6pS4O2lU0uWDl eYrBZElqL+qnVvnDgvVHGk0ymuEqjaJeDP5Sdy1I8sE0fa9ddlDydcUetWizWZ6ibtQH JHSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcZJTcMV+vx2qI9+RWqpPSo7O946eeVEuFgZe6hrBARJHTCE52L JRyFAlv4Wu1S3hB04mCla8yOk3x8LH00Zy0zG5WFrQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoujfPGY8zobLBhGI70/RTq8Bs0Na9+vFcL5+mvXvcE1Sr+qUBwcczs2RbFf5ugJ2MxxoyIyJe64Amj+yR9+/Do=
X-Received: by 10.200.20.24 with SMTP id k24mr2791720qtj.109.1515129413911; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:16:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.33.1 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:16:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1oEWD5Ls3+SKqEgUgXo2iznawFdNB31h91+NbAHpLE59Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuGu1oEWD5Ls3+SKqEgUgXo2iznawFdNB31h91+NbAHpLE59Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:16:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZfT6ATUn8ozqr1jdX0EJtxnxWEwFLzWqwRnTjypoS78g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082947348149260562008e13"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/t8hFcDS9qnK6KgFulwTTQ4H1bv4>
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 05:16:57 -0000

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his
> (see email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank <
> seth@sethblank.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . .
>>
>
> I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term
> "arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or
> "arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent
> ARC set. Doing so is not in any way a "failure" and has no bearing on the
> validity of the ARC chain (as documented in the cv parameter). Opinions
> regarding a replacement term?
>

I would prefer "arc.*" to "ams.*", because all of the registered examples
name the protocol from which the information is being taken.  But the text
describing "ptype" allows for either, so it's only a preference.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email