IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Discussion about draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 19 January 2022 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A7B3A176D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=ggbl8Pe1; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=A+3UYv2j
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 5PvgH4a-1kzG for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 4F86E3A1801 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:52:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1642618335; bh=rQ9UqyN70KkIQ70uKRa6ClN614uV/CXGnlcH4XtpwCc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ggbl8Pe1aHN7+mSkM9LzPL8RTVKcUOCJ7xW58SjuXvaN86xfNjpU096L2+eMYxeNW SR53UpJwLw+ivL+yzS1Cw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1642618335; bh=rQ9UqyN70KkIQ70uKRa6ClN614uV/CXGnlcH4XtpwCc=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A+3UYv2jUu3vaYRBTwvx6gXTfWGvDwJt7goCF4GWYIg5edet/EsTYI5o8Bj8gy+ae 0n5dP4cwdnMQu8WU+ALKysIXHuv9SrhoSQ7vzY03Z77EWJdSaiDGxDB709BWZAYjxZ Py+YR8oU4c5Jbl00rc9haHiOCkO+O5YizLbUJoaadYeP/mgwIVCzIUAdkMy/u
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC028.0000000061E85DDF.000035B2; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:52:15 +0100
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20220115022255.2308E34F7E4B@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <67ce9f2e-05e8-eeaf-9203-fb7a645cf048@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:52:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220115022255.2308E34F7E4B@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/HvpaBjC9k2G5FjWt6N8sXmZ1SGg>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Discussion about draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:52:40 -0000

On Sat 15/Jan/2022 03:22:54 +0100 John Levine wrote:
>   [ redirected from the dispatch list ]
> 
>>>I want to introduce you my email-related draft "Complaint Feedback Loop
>>>Address Header" which can be found @
>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header/.
>>>The intention of this draft is to have documented, standardized and
>>>automated way to provide a so called complaint feedback loop address to
>>>mailbox providers.


I'd be curious about some details of that I-D.

For one, why do all the exemplified DKIM signatures sign the Content-Type?  It 
is not among the recommended fields of Section 5.4.1 of RFC6376, unless using l=.

It is not clear how to obtain the double DKIM signature.  Since the examples 
show no selectors, it is unclear if super-saas-mailer publishes various keys, 
one for each authorized sender.

The practice to redact information could be mentioned.

Why shouldn't messages automatically filtered to the Junk folder be reported? 
Isn't it interesting?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email