IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] one can re-sign without a permission to re-sign header

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6131A056D for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 lOng2fKbV5YH for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5242F1A0549 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 99146 invoked from network); 5 May 2014 20:45:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=18348.5367f887.k1405; bh=1Tzt8ctwIpdn97WKrZzKvC0u/dLA/EbrGbiJtAg75+Y=; b=cRfLfr4N3iytTo0QQn9j2+7afhFRbPhT+6OxiXhO8BiCeePfoDltk7o8iBIXlC+6SrBkRt5/EzHPBBqwhNhBKfu0JdFR7ck4Gc36B0i5ScCUGtR1RXWe0DNwRrU31O2ir5DBngL9uyemcYhhObQ/ZdPZBJ0V0aBQ+i7v2h9+wF9PJkduuetcZFpP2KgzGU70851ul+9EOdmMMo7Ftk50Ul7ENuq+zfxb0Sa9iyZF13+8OI4mP0Fu9KZkYidWHTCo
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=18348.5367f887.k1405; bh=1Tzt8ctwIpdn97WKrZzKvC0u/dLA/EbrGbiJtAg75+Y=; b=CN6UNFlJs5z+vIIAjaJV8B/hOaMqf27ydIluugFi4BIqRVKwPpTJncK5LYRq6zlWt3Ka0KZ0bxP36/lbtRExMWE9ZWhBh/V6n3FLJz+mUeTAxz5u0f+WXrmgYu7IAEEltatF2gyHExVQ4ES96nF/fHGPzxylJ03zLhFo8+YH7OCfB27cua0NSSW+23imaUvCZOtqIUsbn8+KJJ+/0fxrO1QsI7ZUIOfTQi6Nt4hOvSghl/VVr/jZw+IqnLRl/8K6
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 05 May 2014 20:45:58 -0000
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:45:58 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405051640470.58366@joyce.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYvmLWH4knPeZSFSp+zecdMaJ2RKDobD_=NU=o7YJXMWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140501195449.68225.qmail@joyce.lan> <5363ACA6.1010203@qti.qualcomm.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405021036010.79573@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwYvmLWH4knPeZSFSp+zecdMaJ2RKDobD_=NU=o7YJXMWw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/rK28_WfJKbVxqJ3aujw3LKv1D9g
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] one can re-sign without a permission to re-sign header
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:46:04 -0000

> If we're discarding may-forward, then it seems to me we might be better off
> talking about a whitelist publish/query mechanism that deserves
> standardization here.  Does VBR or a slight modification to it suffice, or
> do we want something else?

Anything that whitelists by domain name is going to end up similar to VBR, 
so if that's what we want to do, we might as well use VBR.  I am assuming 
that this would not be a straight to the inbox whitelist, just one to skip 
DMARC policy processing.

VBR can use a DKIM signature or validated SPF bounce address as a lookup 
handle (or Domain Keys or Sender ID, but I hope we agree they're dead.)

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email