IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de> Tue, 22 November 2016 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7CF12967E for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lrz.de
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 4BMRQ-IZD-Nr for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 9CB8F129693 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAMGBR6k016225; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:11:28 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=lrz.de header.i=@lrz.de header.b=D40YTg/k; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de (postout2.mail.lrz.de [129.187.255.138]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAMGBOgT016215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:11:26 -0800
Received: from lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3tNVmw6M1DzyjG for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:10:24 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: postout.lrz.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=lrz.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lrz.de; h= user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:mime-version:received:received:received; s= postout; t=1479831024; bh=yJ8q3K4YXsdy50r/gEaPYXdH1KBGY2rw/EIbfY 5WEQo=; b=D40YTg/kzyyOjhMMsJ47xd9rY/dY91RCTTBw3wJGTW1VoHKLUggzyO 6Tb7evlh1WdK7h/385UqP16D2T2N2yj9ODjV561eTKfUNt69owuiyUBT0BNFCW4X G3gC2puhBuHTZ8Ilx2FG/ufFgmHLnjVE9M0PyPkGwuu6RntY9qKj+qoKPVVv28uP +O9mu+e5cR8w0SbERSS/5ZCkENmdgi08DWOOOt0PicIok9qsHdF3/c9idHQceT3Y Wc8TJ4opsUOtakIPYlohrLJFylBRpj+gtU1JbXd9h4Azumz+6tRD7PxWmHnuO5se uyQd1r0fm7+2CUUVU9W4Hx5gzFnKKrug==
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de
Received: from postout2.mail.lrz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de (lxmhs52.srv.lrz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024) with LMTP id mKN3drBWTFzV for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:10:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from roundcube.lrz.de (roundcube.lrz.de [IPv6:2001:4ca0:0:103::81bb:ff93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postout2.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3tNVmw2bJbzyjD for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:10:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 2001:4ca0:0:f000:e18f:9aec:57b:6ef9 by roundcube.lrz.de with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:10:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:10:23 +0100
From: Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de>
To: Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611190918490.1508@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611142158000.21738@ary.local> <01Q7ASDZFS6C011WUX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwazAg2UJvGAr+nx8R_xEbc4xV0ttPEWFKUD69u6xXaMhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaMzy=qeW5XYZ_txPaiYE27Oof+C5V1uRANvv-_cayOcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR00MB0107389F8FE73F140849A19996BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <2736ea21-69e6-83b1-3b59-377c032290b5@dcrocker.net> <CY1PR00MB01072F4EB32969888104C45196BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CAL0qLwbdNVwT-xiCmxyhSqKcp4-hCA1COHKh0wdYrYEekzZ=XA@mail.gmail.com> <3009defcc6dc9043823618dbc338460d@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwbvqABZGsm2Hp20y8wgvQTKvPn+EBKiS37eMrp+9NemjA@mail.gmail.com> <da2e49df90980fe460d1effd7734ef42@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwbA6Vjqpi5hGOtbpLV9FwgDO3VVA=Q5GgAU9F0qOsQCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <63a2bfc52a81eb569a0af5e1699390d9@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwZ42=GFDRm7H0qQ_7bczY8CPQaEuSUfgFEbO_Y5+5YvqA@mail.gmail.com> <b92d042d6be905ffd4bc43ea510571c2@xmail.mwn.de> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611190918490.1508@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <4dca1c28f61e89a1f5c2690e4786a38b@xmail.mwn.de>
X-Sender: Michael.Storz@lrz.de
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.0
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

Am 2016-11-19 15:22, schrieb John R. Levine:
>> The negative side of the proposal is the requirement to split all 
>> multi-recipient-emails to single-recipient-emails, which is a show 
>> stopper for me.
> 
> I'm with Murray -- why is this a problem?  Single recipient has been
> the de-facto standard for years, and unless you are extremely
> bandwidth constrained, it's faster.

No, it's not faster, see my answer to Murray. It's wasting a lot of 
ressources.

> 
>  But I don't think this requirement is needed. I would allow a list of
>> recipients and have a paragraph which states ...
> 
> See previous discussion.  We rejected multi-recipient signatures
> because of the bcc recipipient leakage.

John, did you read my email? The whole text is about how the leakage of 
the BCCs can be prevented and the feature of a multi-recipient email be 
preserved. If you see an error in the algorithm, please explain.

> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. 
> https://jl.ly

Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email