IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 20:58 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 50D5D129491 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:58:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, 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 (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.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 IW5_S41IzrF9 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:58:05 -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 66D2F128E19 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:58:05 -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 uAHKw7Tr001995; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:58:08 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XiOmZbbA; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-yb0-f173.google.com (mail-yb0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAHKw35o001980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:58:05 -0800
Received: by mail-yb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d128so74166527ybh.2 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:57:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a6DkKfzW6UviITIYsEf2/AUKvcsDxP3MT+a3XsrPaX8=; b=XiOmZbbAZDxlRz36hS4s08oWl7AsQN3aZTXu5lD7huzJybRLxw24ZZUUF6QV0SyQE1 3v0ZnixWvOq78yfQO4M0ZjoHOTqD1pQGmzxoCi1U9chAzSBsvhUNIbTVU1Z5qpomcBBw phzIHoStRC+q835qLI49EBdm32HXGoZMIndGKPQnYtAM/spUQjNgYktmDs3XAGU69Ip3 BwZTGUPMDEvUEe1XYgGRtwyvO721A6TmhUc5L1GdFOlfm5kQRe1mt23thlQ61M1Pg+Oj xbBsfLIh0bnA0R5Na0lJ6vSrhxDejRBPu6kjSbsCnCJmWieZAKwKUhy6yyeAnzRFbden Y8ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a6DkKfzW6UviITIYsEf2/AUKvcsDxP3MT+a3XsrPaX8=; b=W0klho1B9T3D3fKWPOozPVODSf1aYRd5OwMV++20JP4HC73mKOPHDHO3+WBA5VOnE/ En+k4yPTiZbA+x36JvoOZYoUUrvT1tDuORHYjT60u66+xZbsGVegbB658U2cPaDMaL1q ZYuvg5xeJRAJnKYBB+HmnZuu3TTKfCaFdL6sXhOfbRrgvt9VcQzdGGZ4iD34OfRPFPxK ndKxHmTar9GdZq9nvkeBA2YU4+EanvrZ1EJUZ8DODTaBUPJlIzej4buVciMZ77+7tETh n3f5eCaqIJzE4/vpmwJeYH6F4DsSYKTC0+CAZSnHxTbDAhBpP4SW8SNhXNBXb7cymZgI TOdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfXYVzDf6zQL2QkYOeQYyGcq+ccsKdJz0EhozmBZakVYshBu4rxqmbmLCLuVqS4T3UfkLyu4YiouRitqQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.99.195 with SMTP id x186mr4523657ywb.182.1479416222001; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:57:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.111.130 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:57:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <63a2bfc52a81eb569a0af5e1699390d9@xmail.mwn.de>
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>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 05:57:00 +0900
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ42=GFDRm7H0qQ_7bczY8CPQaEuSUfgFEbO_Y5+5YvqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de>
Cc: Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9153750280136476995=="
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de> wrote:

>
> Thanks, I see. That means the recipient is bound to the message and an
> attacker cannot delete or change the new tags. Great solution, I like it,
> though I do not like the consequences when this extension will go into
> production.
>
>
You may not need to worry about that.  We've reached a point where I think
we can legitimately say, "We took a serious look, and this is the best we
could come up with.  It has some pretty ugly side effects.  Are you sure
you can't just stop signing spam?"  And absent a compelling answer to that
question, there's no need to roll this out even as an experiment.

-MSK

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email