IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 30 December 2020 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 B96D23A0B37 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.com
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 Y0pZX2DNoV3F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23D303A0B36 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id b5so4101133pjl.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=zALvHyJ48Fq6MxlACulCcKrg+zOLm2gpCbh6lkR1lns=; b=I5G1iFMCexnmcSxzeRLjDzsVr4UFKiqVgOeWVuJ77IJJB8FhaL3pcXajs4SIfOhuO3 7rGin8UjPP069fFtPaTpjafP0DtHxQ6Vzp9pAKbucHZcyq++AiCUWAjudzh+E+0eAbBK dxBY1aEGIYkncZslq4K+Qc2DrilI2IEDxzSfBTbn2DD45cb+hoAu/2+xtCBC9P9absns 3p8CZb8qK+XAqZw0K79bRcx1dz4wLT8VXTQBscaywacYEp1cJeM9738LgAEv7ALt1iUQ V+/fVgPRgiQsRZdRupLMepW5jvh8n4gMFax4gXpoQvgx96TceaFEbPk24IIa1iD8x5hX lttA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=zALvHyJ48Fq6MxlACulCcKrg+zOLm2gpCbh6lkR1lns=; b=k3jiNgrkhu30rw2zy+DEE3m1s7g5MZ899g60S8VLBur8M79MPRzN3PtYqLF5AwtTfG Oc0fbz0yI//NP0tkuY456xZhZk20+zFzlbm/Lisr1HYcnXC0bUWFteHJBpfRpM46ogdT oLFi+WMI7yS4rbHniGTQvcHbYjzIwet24spBGQRqaTvchuNYrRodVnXar/GY7+O5Oqoy dXwE6zTccB17UMC7WjYRVdjViBAl0PusEIsoBg8o58MdBoHQLdyacYCcql8F0TXOMjzO h/0wTZhRhzZvHGMQjQ7xBWeuLCa5ZdJ3OlnEsmJ06SZmseW/Em8wiusLLpQ2sExcFZ4g JFcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kLUM6lamzJbY0MRcTEMNRKk8Odx8TCzzcrWO0WYBPDSxuuL6m suV+PUFKzjpRPgiSzwyVTWF5XR+Si3wefQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdG2jGgapU4WEFzt0kKSJoLxwJ6siZZp/3oq0/aR/1ArFQnNqwefoyX7xr/yrMqSLZNeab9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1918:: with SMTP id mp24mr9556103pjb.45.1609353113135; Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-45-95.volcanocom.com. [107.182.45.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c24sm49964752pgi.71.2020.12.30.10.31.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:52 -0800 (PST)
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <9f6782b1-e85b-1a9c-9151-98feff7e18ea@mtcc.com> <54dd9978-bcd1-6757-ad27-dcef6db6e5f7@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kCi=7oqojDH_rbjn7kRg-PTDJWLgcKTGK9z-baUnKeMw@mail.gmail.com> <ef32de1e-d47e-1d0f-3cec-5994c7fdb7ae@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kjSsQK_XEbdjWzV5npa29YjGadzD06Fmx3QLB4p+n_Cg@mail.gmail.com> <937f1019-a028-308d-2a0f-1e720fd49dcd@mtcc.com> <d8014c2a-c1c9-9eac-e64a-5f285bab7fd3@tana.it> <CAHej_8mgYr9ERAxmup+keZT5u8L+qgCxcSLH7Z=BEuZLouttpg@mail.gmail.com> <72e20c17-e991-e82a-9120-a27097e3ac58@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8=6huc-N4ymDTOWZXHGjQQ-3RFDdomRzmGp4kOseHckMQ@mail.gmail.com> <7863d250-f56a-1fe1-44ee-fbc7486d48b4@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdMdaE92UOrXvcAqm2iou+PCGg_uzHUsmBsYRe1PivBJw@mail.gmail.com> <502c2363-385c-b90c-a22a-716594967190@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYdP1bedYv+3MK3vrirfr5CTGvpiOxSO-zZ=9q7=Up9p0g@mail.gmail.com> <01fe63df-1960-868a-3351-08a24bb7a9cf@tana.it> <8e1d6a24-17f4-1fa8-d90a-883e3b8e7432@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfO9SEo3yFcFj5tqgBCzx=+_E23=7E8OvZ6J17aKq6ymhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <6ef89421-4656-143c-c998-2f167be6c302@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:31:50 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfO9SEo3yFcFj5tqgBCzx=+_E23=7E8OvZ6J17aKq6ymhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------22881268F1668A0A10D6DFEB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yf4JESYdFyibuEX8LrWTJ-mJSMc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] auth-res vs. dmarc
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, 30 Dec 2020 18:31:56 -0000

I'll try to propose some text for the ones that would require 
modifications in the ticket. I assume that is appropriate?

Mike

On 12/30/20 10:29 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Thank you filing these tickets.
>
> With regards to which tickets are actively open, I’ve asked the 
> document editors to push on open tickets, stand by.
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:21 Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 12/30/20 10:13 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>     > On Wed 30/Dec/2020 17:38:29 +0100 Dotzero wrote:
>     >> And for the second time, that is not a DMARC problem, it is an
>     >> auth-res problem.
>     >
>     >
>     > Standardizing the result names for dmarc authentication method
>     is an
>     > integral part of DMARC specification.
>     >
>     > Added ticket 91
>     > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/91
>     <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/91>
>     >
>     I opened a ticket too which basically says that there should be a
>     normative Authentication-Results Requirements section in the base
>     specifications. That was a process error from the very beginning with
>     auth-res and its weird semi-official status. I don't think it has
>     ever
>     been discussed whether it is even a protocol or not as Ned brought up
>     (opened a ticket on that too).
>
>     Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmarc mailing list
>     dmarc@ietf.org <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>
>
> -- 
> *Seth Blank*| VP, Standards and New Technologies
> *e:*seth@valimail.com <mailto:seth@valimail.com>
> *p:*415.273.8818
>
>
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential 
> and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of 
> individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and 
> authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, 
> copying or distribution of the information included in this 
> transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately 
> notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from 
> your system.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email