IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:38 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 86F7E3A172E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 CUphxpxB4QDv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:02 -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 2D8233A172C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611599880; bh=T/3VSrmItLMljK7wDsKpXUPqk+HFeazYaxsUL0dYBkA=; l=812; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CKIh+rrs8VdxZZAVZf92ZQITP5NQlfngY6fkdEUvknwa+V4jtH2TmXSs0OdWE+QAj fuDYZItS3R2ilTFs4CEMmHDNQMA4Nc38ps0t00wROm0/goUnS+oxxGFXS5hTsHkTG+ vn5schxXQ33GykGWlugUWg/oVTFoU+/3POV/8CVt5ZpmoLL5prCPFqvU7/0M7
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 00000000005DC028.00000000600F1008.000003CC; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:38:00 +0100
To: "Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB4351BD7203D41DB25771D3B3F7BD9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAH48Zfwat5MmXrvfEp-G=0pTZe2fwwDOJ6s6M1FSWs6M50yk0w@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43513C20B5A598496FFBA4AAF7BD9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <7231cfb1-1553-fd11-e356-57b960c5bfdc@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:37:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB43513C20B5A598496FFBA4AAF7BD9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yTLz-TGBMi-II56HgUoi3UOHrz4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:38:04 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 18:59:16 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> 
> I’m not suggesting that we add anything that would report “Signature
> validation not attempted”, that sounds horrible.  Will the original source
> potentially care that the message was signed in three other places as the
> message bounced around?

It can be useful to understand the mail flow.  For example, a signature by a 
Mediator can reveal a mailing list, even if the receiver didn't evaluate it.


> Should we put the onus on the reporting entity to do the filter out the
> non-aligned (what if none aligned) signatures, or just realize it’s some
> automated job and including all logged/validated signatures is the better
> way?

The order in which signatures appear in a report can be significant too.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email