Re: [dmarc-ietf] Suggestion: can we test DEMARC deployment with a mailing list?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071B31A02A5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.542
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 lVeTZxlH4bk2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8866E1A0227 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26107 invoked from network); 7 May 2014 12:30:56 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 May 2014 12:30:56 -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=1182.536a2780.k1405; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=EpcExwOwa8E7JmdGdtWBHD0TYXgga6uk2dPIgMopVLg=; b=ImyT2/cLmN6fd17dbwYPzu6RfI6eKzhIInLzWLvDSv0lu13vb/079gi99pEtSC125tu/e3DicOrA2Urd5Rq3SMteKlBVmjGgBLkUv32IaGaYtlQiU7bZFAWP3T8qNpYr/g2tP1EWxshM1yCvaChKvk8wYv/Kzg6UjIjJc44XAoW2LlQxJtCtV3elNfkEmuqYd3IVZ8TPZHj7XETPliH6Zy2sG1SRCpewDoOE1wwBywzNlzeHOBRMNIE4iHGeCoU7
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=1182.536a2780.k1405; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=EpcExwOwa8E7JmdGdtWBHD0TYXgga6uk2dPIgMopVLg=; b=v0u4cU8peew6qQxqdXa6JN9jgGnUuA7hV1opIaSH0EwPi/uLnLsLJ4dwzC10urkWskHaADlF+M6kvluiIb/y22yd5Vw2/+M/RUM7EPQ0tkt80pxks721Aw5Q64jsKKB3C0KOEw0zt52B0uHSSCsEIln6RLs9WW5KfCu/9DC4OYnko3rJdu6zDaCfdDK1r6AcIJs6pm/Egqo6FgqIyhDwGRgikOdOHie/MkC/rj5s3QUVvsdi73XxBCpeoWpaIRpG
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 12:30:34 -0000
Message-ID: <20140507123034.4481.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Suggestion: can we test DEMARC deployment with a mailing list?
In-Reply-To: <01P7I8FAW2JY000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0XfKHHYflPeeJls6pCEXh-rVxP8
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 12:31:03 -0000

>>      2.  Use of DKIM and SPF is reasonably well understood and does not
>> cause interesting email operations problems.  I'm starting to hear some
>> unfortunate stories about DKIM signature breakage in scenarios that I'd
>> have hope would not have it, but the breakage of the signature is not
>> breaking legitimate email scenarios.
>
>That's incorrect. The obvious counterexample is MIME downgrading, which was a
>core MIME capability from the start.

I'm not Dave, but I think he meant that the DKIM design didn't depend on
signatures surviving through list managers.  The list signs the mail and
recipients can use that.

We considered other ways to canonicalize but decided there was no way to
catch every plausible mutation (consider a list that flattens HTML to
plain text and then adds a footer), so we kept it simple.

R's,
John