IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 14:35 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 1BEC6129898 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:35:27 -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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 aO1kDxFU2ovh for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:35:25 -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 97CA5129888 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:35:25 -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 uAHEZWVv021274; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:35:32 -0800
Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.31]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAHEZSnc021270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:35:29 -0800
Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES533.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:34:26 -0500
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
Thread-Index: AQHSPnckuJCJ1acMWkKMNo4p3tGS/aDYnMB3gADR7ACAAb6KAIAAAWsAgAAAdoCAAAHdgIAACBIAgACuOQCAAFiqgIABVTGA//+szWA=
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:34:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05267A9A03@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
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> <CY1PR00MB0107C2A78F65F65ED68920A796BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <582DBEF5.5010101@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <582DBEF5.5010101@isdg.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.144.6.79]
x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES533.agna.amgreetings.com, 9
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 11/17/2016 12:36:00 PM
x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by simon.songbird.com id uAHEZSnc021270
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-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:30 AM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org; Ietf Dkim
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-dkim] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-
> kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
> 
> On 11/16/2016 1:09 PM, Terry Zink wrote:
> >> This means ARC will be needed not only for mailing lists which modify
> >> the header or body of an email, but for EVERY mailing list and EVERY
> >> forwarded email or EVERYTIME the recipient has been modified and the
> >> email leaves the ADMD boundary. From a DMARC point of view DKIM will
> >> not be needed anymore because it has now the same function as SPF -
> >> verifiying the origin of direct emails - and SPF is easier to implement for
> most administrators.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > It basically (almost) turns DKIM into SPF. That's not that appealing a
> solution.
> 
> For exclusive policies (SPF -ALL), you really don't need DKIM, DMARC or ARC
> for that matter since the receiver (at least ours) will never accept the payload
> anyway, i.e. it never gets to the SMTP "DATA"
> state.  SPF does not require you to accept the mail for the hard reject policy
> (-ALL).
> 

Hector, the reality is that most mailbox providers do not reject on SPF -all because so many senders don't understand what they are "saying" with -all and the mailbox providers are the ones who get the complaints about mail not getting delivered. THAT is reality.

Mike

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email