IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-to-historic

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 15 July 2026 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmarc@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B666611753837 for <dmarc@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1784139393; bh=wne+yui0t+c+TN+YjysKPsaT91+P9FDUdoriaobyEnI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=gncIriWf7SHC4TdgHL4LlI+kEZOdquMqMPTeHx/cMXt45JEOpqOGrfW94iSq6YZei ILXRiqKp3vulqiPxCxAdVSlbDyymqmNcIQbQQu3AJDmByolhgjIDt721xj+jKZGRAY wL4L6NzrmNfDhmM3uLfwcyVvRk0vuhcpAftZwsNs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cUnueFaL_bDc for <dmarc@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0454D11753832 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1784139391; bh=1rUviRT4xcDuox7uqZpzTI/4ro+dHf3ayJOXcWBTN+s=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CJpLbABX+PgyAe0YTMg4mdbSFYthK5gFVIkIwFNk9OgPFfF7/Vz7IRmlscXPz057J s0XCXJx23tgPFFOFr6s2Kh7ifaKOm2sqYieibd8nYnn8SioDBbMGkKCWZmkvghPXcJ ma4MKo/qHxGgx9dA7MnXBOAgCtouBx+owcrA920JhdyfiZWeFiTUMhn7ntpIr
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-to-historic
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.87] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.87]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3,128bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC028.000000006A57CE7F.00001AA4; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 20:16:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1944f3f0-99b7-47a1-80ee-b2fe11d47d82@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 20:16:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <27205.4140.707940.589907@fireball.acr.fi> <CAL0qLwYy6Ch50KRG5vEJ4H_OzMcNK7o4=LhCtN0Yy=a7jnoG7A@mail.gmail.com> <EAYPR11MB95622EBB5D7269AE429CF1ADF7FF2@EAYPR11MB9562.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <6afbebf2-25f8-4ab6-ba93-3cf98f405efe@tana.it> <112oo2l$2i7h$1@gal.iecc.com> <1fbce465-c7a8-439b-8cc7-02f936b30905@tana.it> <678dcce7-ef7c-ade2-6b7b-23a915aa45ff@taugh.com> <80d38808-ffef-4d98-a11d-c7a1a983895f@tana.it> <f30a1382-fdcc-e639-eefc-dd0a97499345@taugh.com>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <f30a1382-fdcc-e639-eefc-dd0a97499345@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID-Hash: 24FLFLBJ64232RTOOHEYFSPYU4GQXDXF
X-Message-ID-Hash: 24FLFLBJ64232RTOOHEYFSPYU4GQXDXF
X-MailFrom: vesely@tana.it
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dmarc.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-to-historic
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance (DMARC)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tmtpYZT9SBAKd3GhTCFNYJfrCRA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dmarc-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dmarc-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dmarc-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed 15/Jul/2026 19:43:50 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2026, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> I do not see how that is at all relevant.  "Not as obviously broken as X, Y, 
>>> and Z" doesn't mean it works.
>>
>> Sorry, just ruminating...
>>
>> I think it's important to understand why the experiment didn't produce the 
>> expected results.  However, neither the I-D nor the RFC state exactly what 
>> results were expected.  Conveying original authentication assessments across 
>> trust boundaries, as a goal, was certainly achieved.
>
> No, it was not.  As we know from the previous discussion on this topic on this 
> list, Y tells us that they had to ignore G's ARC chains because they signed 
> messages that took insecure routes and were silently modified.


This is not reported in the I-D.  It sounds like a sort of ARC-replay problem, 
correct?


Best
Ale
--

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status