IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] RFC2821bis discussion of DKIM and SPF (was Re: Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7360C1A032A for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 EeKxKvQ89Zfe for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B031A03D8 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6MAAWLU004699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406023844; x=1406110244; bh=vzV3p9ornIZ1FR9z/hnV47gKPxHXg2mOR4o2GMj7GVk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=oj4v9lC8q4ekT1IuJaU/Kpv91Iu7WfDAcKpXyNqtz+wx7NW2GyDvchnenFFGua+OM fgQjk/wvLQ6rOnXZEXLMRrkK2/p/GIvlhntoodY0yjH4IoM7gAIvZub4aaYb5T8dHu LUn5cvR7ZS91pmE0ifma+JVfwoJ22lQK5wHp/eZE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406023844; x=1406110244; i=@elandsys.com; bh=vzV3p9ornIZ1FR9z/hnV47gKPxHXg2mOR4o2GMj7GVk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=EXfEjulu3Db4BHpgDJLag/y2px9K3Jqfa4KG+LuDHDm8Np1WMKbzM9QsNp/YFmwEI T2H2OIeufm0BUN6QYBFh9AkwAeFXGUEGxF9C4roORbJn1Jkylsh0B/m3gGX28c8tik 2ZqZkiCKZ05m1OZva6uI+oUG2vdPpYRI0shaS96s=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140722021137.0c643090@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:04:33 -0700
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <01PAFXWF9XGG007ZXF@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net> <7354967.GDdX3kdiTY@scott-latitude-e6320> <D50D2E3DB36466BCF1D3679F@[172.16.50.177]> <53CC14D6.90906@dcrocker.net> <85CC051A80D0CB4F23E0B70D@JCK-EEE10> <6.2.5.6.2.20140721060039.0c0b5e08@resistor.net> <53CD1CA9.5000002@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140721071409.0b93a000@elandnews.com> <53CD6F2F.9080204@dcrocker.net> <01PAFXWF9XGG007ZXF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/rIsTAgEOohoyCUf7nbcJoBg943M
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] RFC2821bis discussion of DKIM and SPF (was Re: Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM)
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:10:55 -0000

Hi Ned,
At 14:16 21-07-2014, Ned Freed wrote:
>I agree with Dave about this. This text is in the context of return 
>paths. DKIM
>signs message content; it has no way to cover return paths or any 
>other part of
>the envelope, which is what RFC 5321 describes. Anyone reading this is likely
>to be confused and start looking for DKIM capabilities that aren't actually
>there.
>
>The situation surrounding SPF is different. The text mischaracterizes what SPF
>does, but at least SPF has something to do with return paths. Some wordsmthing
>would be nice, but at least someone who goes looking for the 
>connection between
>SPF and return paths will be able to find something.

I am not disagreeing with Dave or you.

A look at the history of that text shows that Hector Santos flagged 
the issue as a small nit.  Tony Hansen probably didn't think that it 
was a significant issue.  I agreed with Frank Ellermann that DKIM 
doesn't look at return paths.  After taking all that into 
consideration I would not say that there wasn't consensus about that text.

The issues identified in RFC 5321 are documented at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 
Barry and Stephen were the DKIM WG Chairs.  They did not flag that 
sentence as an issue.  John Klensin, Alexey, Dave and Pete were aware 
of the pre-evaluation.  As John Levine mentioned, we should have 
caught this stuff.

I took a look at the Errata process.  I don't know how to fit such a 
change in there. :-(

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email