Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do we need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 03 August 2019 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 7193F1200EC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=xNH/1zLO; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=mw23/BRf
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 JZC2aSa8wRaO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 220511200E6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20D3F8046C; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1564849822; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=u85aG+b1/zWeZulAnoYK2OzADQA6lhWe9lPr2h+Ooxk=; b=xNH/1zLOVcklW+5izR3vTkYu77LGdoVOcVrWU+GoyHno+xmJMabIc5r7 l3bXLERD7KR3nSmJsMEILeD6SRudAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1564849822; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=u85aG+b1/zWeZulAnoYK2OzADQA6lhWe9lPr2h+Ooxk=; b=mw23/BRf2qAeV3i0Z1Ohf5yG+rws1yLqD/qFhmOlmX1+uxpx9ZMJH0vL vLhKcH5pHq4rgRgpN24ubQfvn8K5lqY2gZ4u5c6aXNOnJ9ahZYiHuLm+zZ 3ocJV48hXAGricKcFfz5EILRWbsn+q0DCHDU6jkCJbGGLU/NNl+ODQYZyJ kFfLOByHYza1iTflEKyXsy0A4BfTpipB+kyV7ZhWz62fCB/nb0ylDD5qBM O6ifRzxlyobrYq7a5siTmoADWjUFAToxHGQt8b85Trtx5vT61+855jaH/0 pnfEELkTaAvfBY5BkYzKFvCL2DG4NvByldh+oO5/Y8Q2Sk3a7k0euw==
Received: from [192.168.1.184] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96FCEF80096; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 16:30:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaY=YPskxLwZXkm9Gj4yvYEdJTMBSECOxvg6B4+Xb4EJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e580ada3-d9b5-0e5b-9ac3-eade41ac92d2@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa5yR5dVzkDSD48MDgpUa11+ri=KOwrNSqOxi8fB2i6PA@mail.gmail.com> <eabefc6b-7542-1a46-4272-b786433ed0b5@tana.it> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <CAL0qLwb5FAaYZ7AX_H=aeUFkv8cvY+xd1bQ5uCDp4tmrbx2CQg@mail.gmail.com> <7a21b80b-e6bb-d8b9-cf63-601a8d1e47e7@tana.it> <C1E711A8-F3A6-4A20-B71D-53FA773A61D9@kitterman.com> <aca25d30-3b01-4eaf-6d0b-3bae6f3f796b@tana.it> <CAL0qLwaY=YPskxLwZXkm9Gj4yvYEdJTMBSECOxvg6B4+Xb4EJA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <F702377A-C5D7-47F7-AFB7-C8BCA5A46316@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uK4or4Kphi7FYkQl7zExaJbeAVI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do we need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 16:30:56 -0000


On August 2, 2019 7:58:30 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>; wrote:
...
>For guidance here, I would rely on anecdotes of implementation.  Has
>anyone
>implemented something that attaches "iprev" results?
...

The authres Python module that I maintain has implemented the structure and has examples/tests that match what you are suggesting.

It implements all the registered A-R variants for completeness.  I don't know if there are any applications that use iprev.

Scott K