Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 02 December 2020 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 BE9F13A1361 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 02:37:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 SkhkmbggaIxP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 02:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB383A135F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 02:37:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1606905458; bh=LkVh/cK4eLOeiohsme8T/BFluOamwK0AT4axrC/AtyU=; l=683; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C2Vd61MvlPCHOrOi5TCPPihsRMwMeFIZve4qiRc3rxnq/4X6izEhn0TKA9KyZEDoM +QD2KxyAV0rVbzybkyb6tdOKg5SHICkWXOHoPuuaCBqNRKDB0YR0V9LT+rMheTGBg9 Ao7fhoJXfsRkFv22F8dLgmuuBRs/pCWPlh043XKy7hotrkVB9X/0cIZaLD4X+
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC07C.000000005FC76E71.00000E5B; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 11:37:37 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <bef64e7a-571b-a73f-dc91-aa402ca320c8@taugh.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <e29d0e2a-20d2-6ad8-15ab-d6406a55e67d@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:37:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bef64e7a-571b-a73f-dc91-aa402ca320c8@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xT2MTfihMMdW3_xBtAXhh7pXoQQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #1 - SPF alignment
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:37:56 -0000

On Tue 01/Dec/2020 23:17:15 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
> We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so short 
> trenchant comments are welcome.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think that for SPF, it should be considered a pass if either the MAIL FROM
> or the HELO is aligned and results in a pass at the SPF level.

+1, especially for bounces.


> If it is decided to allow both HELO and MAIL FROM results to be
> passed back to DMARC, then in section "6.6.2. Determine Handling
> Policy", item 4 should be updated to reflect that as well.


If alignment is not known at step 4, both domain names (if different) must be 
passed to step 5.


Best
Ale
--