Re: [ietf-smtp] MTA-STS reports via HTTPS

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 B7E7F3A12B4 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=pnH2gvwh; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=G5bCybir
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 oucEXqWv76Yo for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 4065D3A12B5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2287 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2020 23:03:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=8e6.5e8fa9a4.k2004; bh=eNdOEpmzmIuPOZutHBxVPA1/rQUdWxMHED/Yfk3yO08=; b=pnH2gvwhXbBgv0CQwdtUTgnwqmmWAczlwuG3dNVdS842Q2GT2AqtADErOJJdtp6SaMWzClwpvngCmb5lNIk8EHwg49c1B/WQOuWgneSgTDRFgF7Wk9gfyvBuJtUynUMbQQu3CQAto+0ey5oTobsyB0iJi6odtJ1OPVa9FNnvPb4wkBvJWX/yfwuifOlbWNqtlmmbaxif0XcQfo75rW/lZ1wQUPuk1FQO96oWS/VHONYuhGnxzMJbda4RL3jH4uKQ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=8e6.5e8fa9a4.k2004; bh=eNdOEpmzmIuPOZutHBxVPA1/rQUdWxMHED/Yfk3yO08=; b=G5bCybiryr2h5JFhMVcWohomF9J5v3QhzSihIZ0gDjBa4TXPLKFgSAtTAlO4wKyS1Cfgkd8WZTgaAQ+FbTCOe03wee6nb7a7MjCGc6LG/fco/yLQkf/Nf2wOLM6jSLDrKOyVhQtlHULYu0xbjIQWq+XfeCi6Z0FsUx0HSl2jLlH4fep+RQCMHeu74qUkHoM3CJq0l4hY1+wmAtyog7yi2TYYDfclG6+uhUX/3V7w+9fpOzx4rJmxcQ0xE81eZMAK
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 09 Apr 2020 23:02:59 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id D00E1176381B; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 19:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 9 Apr 2020 19:02:59 -0400
Message-Id: <20200409230259.D00E1176381B@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Cc: brian@socketlabs.com
In-Reply-To: <FFE6E0C4-51D4-4858-9092-791F8983B881@socketlabs.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/o1zny5JaFKbBrqErRZdr5iz97SY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] MTA-STS reports via HTTPS
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 23:03:03 -0000

In article <FFE6E0C4-51D4-4858-9092-791F8983B881@socketlabs.com> you write:
>Our biggest gripe with the current spec is specific to DKIM and the suggestion of using a service type
>declaration of “s=tlsrpt” in the DKIM public key.  Support for this service type at receiving
>systems appears to be rather abysmal ...

Per my previous messages, it's pretty clear that was a mistake in 8460
due to misunderstanding what service types are for.  It's also pretty
strange that it has a hugely overspecfied set of rules for validating
mailed reports and nothing at all for https ones.

R's,
John