IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 897FE3A0F36 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 CoKysMfTau0m for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]) (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 9B6263A0F39 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com with SMTP id j10so2667734qvk.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EaIuFEhGSgGGvF+mYQOtC2Ogh8/vENmUCpIT2e81FpY=; b=Pa04behb2x4BRc5IRBqVDO5U5sIzupiy/yACj5G9TMa4sCb8D5FruGOmJm9T/chHHq rMF3E/pr4ZdKhbBWXNn37HPGJz9g6UNShMEEl/i8C5tvRv05BvAGtbfHB54HJQ43k9mD nLQEGU73iMfzAab63seEKpIpgQFGPvBKVREKq94DP8MjSB8ycVqxsVuwexOyCusY3Spm twj6r72cQn16yj69cH4mF50DA5ZsbGz6ZJaqpDDNAGwqc2Wco6SoxKrMUW5dUedVK4UU cCJjyH/4/9/gBsg/xezVCQrU4xEC5zEeh2To8ZtBHh69jTpZwr2+/YARkGeWEpG7PxpA Iy5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EaIuFEhGSgGGvF+mYQOtC2Ogh8/vENmUCpIT2e81FpY=; b=QlnPfDs1wOG3Zp97j8zN2vsCcFT5BGFi3XnnrjHHhFwoDj07tF89I91vaxOZrnvOJn 1prFxQTWbewk2x9XcOYwamSDewlKqLSMeW0oSjLzyudJhPZISEkffRpE5D3pXPaGn8nx rxQUDv1i6rKLFCNppwTC1IwpTTByF3li7whQuGhiatftvoas/HpkzPd/zd9KnOPxovL8 k5wJfDGeSLh8NZTC5RHyT6OSoks1nEJ6Ua0OV5j6KgLMm9oiFcFnrIcJp5BMMZBMkEjr NjhXCJIyb6lKwg/wxvm+ff1sc2GjPGDjGD/U/+Blsw7cq3bfQUap4VYiW+QNYq7DYsWK JUeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5327Dir63qvM7BYqP9GhEVobG875WK99e6hzVUYXusPtZKfw80Wc ZAP0fyPOPVkyuAPBk8GYa7giGCImfX1NLLHIc1Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycV89S59S7cny9Owu5LR+ilSRYu6pEmGf9Idhp3lJW23z5mOi5nqBsWoqQ3H9jB50NchEUkAZrHXslGaps2bk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1181:: with SMTP id t1mr5645835qvv.11.1601400656594; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200927171611.838B321D9BAD@ary.qy> <5069099.lO0Lvmlme3@zini-1880> <a4e016ba-673a-81f0-829b-b3b7adb6fcac@dcrocker.net> <5F73393D.4010805@isdg.net> <7afb25f6-c258-e92c-fdfe-10fe26ccecec@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <7afb25f6-c258-e92c-fdfe-10fe26ccecec@dcrocker.net>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:30:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYfuNwKEJU8tQheb0jpX5V4Jwhnq5PCWq-8YvsbtwNnXhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004789d905b0772598"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tdzapdyuxyscQtgAY2TZCMA5Gf0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:31:11 -0000

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:26 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> > On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From
> >> DMARC establishes the relationship.
> > I don't read it that way.
> >
> > DKIM binds the signer d= domain and the from.domain with no
> > enforcement on it nor any indication that they are related when they
> > not the same (the missing link).
>
>
> Absolutely not.  Please re-read the DKIM specification more carefully.
> It is quite explicit that it is doing not doing this.
>
> To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you
> need to point to the documentation that supports that view.
>
>
> > But if they are the same domain, then they are viewed as self-signed
> > and 100% related.
>
> Not based on the DKIM specification.
>
> To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you
> need to point to the documentation that supports that view.
>
>
> > The DKIM POLICY
>
> DKIM has no construct that qualifies as 'policy'.
>
> To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you
> need to point to the documentation that supports that view.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>

Even though Dave and I may disagree on other things, he is 100% correct on
the above. This is one of the reasons we came up with DMARC.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email