IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc and forwarding

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Fri, 31 January 2014 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <kurt@roeckx.be>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB2A1A051E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:17:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 UE_aHtGfOQd6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from defiant.e-webshops.eu (defiant.e-webshops.eu [82.146.122.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8555B1A051F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from intrepid.roeckx.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defiant.e-webshops.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8EF1C215E; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:17:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: by intrepid.roeckx.be (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F5621FE077A; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:17:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:17:32 +0100
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140131001732.GA29928@roeckx.be>
References: <20140130220330.GA25608@roeckx.be> <52EACDBF.2050003@bluepopcorn.net> <20140130222320.GB25641@roeckx.be> <WM!6bb3f78a7feaec45cd6e16db08822359f618288053561e2a2c08e397644e063795fab5be7076e0d2e8163de4e710e3ff!@asav-2.01.com> <1762762424.26365.1391121588323.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <20140130225152.GA27685@roeckx.be> <CAL0qLwbpy7R0gF9YPXJwFqrYr0F_ESxjLFS7ZSaxxTHpBF6KPA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbpy7R0gF9YPXJwFqrYr0F_ESxjLFS7ZSaxxTHpBF6KPA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Franck Martin <franck@peachymango.org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc and forwarding
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 31 Jan 2014 00:17:38 -0000

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:53:51PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I don't agree, since DMARC is predicated in part on the notion that DKIM
> has become sufficiently reliable in general as to be a viable building
> block upon which to build things like DMARC.  Your question is based on the
> idea that your experience is the opposite.  Naturally, we're curious.
> 
> I believe the questions you're getting are actually attempts to help.  Are
> you sure swatting their hands is the right response?

It's my understanding that in general about 90% of the DKIM mails
have a bad signature.  It's also my understanding that were DKIM
tends to fail, SPF tends to work and the other way around.  But
DMARC seems to combining the two in such a way it's more than
likely to have a failure as result instead of a pass.

Why I'm seeing 90% failure in DKIM instead of 10% is irrelevant.


Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email