IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Thu, 17 November 2016 14:31 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 863BC12996E for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.991
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=isdg.net header.b=pGboqnqx; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=Yq4kdKhQ
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 edI-dkf-DHNq for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:31:19 -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 D317E129468 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:31:19 -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 uAHEVQtI021170; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:31:27 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=isdg.net header.i=@isdg.net header.b=pGboqnqx; dkim-adsp=fail (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from ntbbs.santronics.com (winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAHEVNEO021153 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:31:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=912; t=1479393019; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=f3WjISZXtSAIaKayOiDoLbKoLTE=; b=pGboqnqxvV/EXzQzxQaE 2KYDVBUo3gfsjj9VusoWHDNrmEFatLDg6RvRzvIXT2u7goHRdaFwK7YYiqmygkzr Kdxh2aPeSp2f6C/dpY9HRHfx7x9vTMkyK6GzQOWB46i7DbyRdyhvG+VL6C35Kzm9 Bt8LoZ7Wqq4LZdEahvYXR9U=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:30:19 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 931979706.1.3532; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:30:18 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=912; t=1479392979; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=qDk79vm v0rkEeqxIhztQ3z0NYUr6Xcacr3ojjXDLXnk=; b=Yq4kdKhQEBvaeREBE06SD40 TohMxLhwSwrirQoAjvLkWB4jnlzoy8c1rYa57MQquJH+sg70wgubevrokUTjKJcq gXVOVlGfquNGjpsXAbnhlsDWYPBNXLs40+ZkL8hWT1kd2AFS6KvIrrQVf7kUyRwX RVcCnZNeqZbDCCTtcTKg=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:29:39 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 928443968.10.213028; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:29:39 -0500
Message-ID: <582DBEF5.5010101@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:30:13 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>, Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR00MB0107C2A78F65F65ED68920A796BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
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>

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).

-- 
HLS


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email