Re: Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04

Mitch Rodrigues <mitch@telmate.com> Wed, 23 April 2014 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mitch@telmate.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 3CF241A0009 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] 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 X_zyjQnoFnal for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com (mail-oa0-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049D41A0007 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id eb12so389680oac.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from :mime-version:subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=gwlf4u4dHZjz1oNBrkU6pBZNtcrrwa3Icwk78ouodSw=; b=hodBcJCf04XNsQ2RByt4R+h7kS6krQHYK9EF7IYl81lCBDPuNsjIDP4iYzD7rRJF8F YSBkOzm3QLT2YosykrJGfoubKHsXS+sAWSAv3Ir8KvPYrIudJvBbGOIbHLtTglLSl7FR pPUJz4F2lBUnU8SalxkbTvGJb5dJzqMhQ6v607xRMTuDoFwX5T53kTBsdmOYoUoJPWVD bpPVHtiuAgLWqHk8XmCUXCRB1udWERRlIL7xpUl3OoUY9z+lrr2Y4sRX9xRfEowRhO1I Hdw6g5ybYF4Q+lRrF4blEPxdgMkOyXeVDS0SlOCjT2TB6nccHv5gQNLODmmArl/S6sJ+ Fcig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkVlyiWevgkHC9Wv8v9QyYfRTX91+BSfBw4sWU4wofFTW7pHXR3Ec3DxBcbmbbTLJ9t0ro6
X-Received: by 10.60.62.178 with SMTP id z18mr48611oer.61.1398222188400; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [51.219.160.77] (66-87-118-77.pools.spcsdns.net. [66.87.118.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y10sm80506177obk.4.2014.04.22.20.03.05 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-2C19AE88-4B8B-421A-9837-9B7FA06E2FE2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mitch Rodrigues <mitch@telmate.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:02:59 -0700
Message-Id: <D52EE5A7-CCCA-4579-BF49-950F259CE6D6@telmate.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140422074852.0d368728@elandnews.com> <20140423003045.EBE6F1ACDC@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <01P6YID0EMJ2000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01P6YID0EMJ2000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
To: "ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com" <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PgUULJR3P6dSo-Gkg82m1D_-6LY
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 23 Apr 2014 03:03:20 -0000

I don't see why we wouldn't, discussions regarding this draft have been going for quite some time. Might as well get community support regarding this, plus if nothing else it's fairly interesting subject.


Mitch Rodrigues / Software Engineer
Telmate
655 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Email  
Office www.Telmate.com |www.GettingOut.com | GettingOut Facebook




> On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:14 PM, ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> 
> Do we really want to be discussing changes to this draft on the main 
> IETF list?
> 
>> S Moonesamy wrote:
>>> 
>>> In Section 8:
>>> 
>>>   "If the RFC5322.From domain does not exist in the DNS, Mail Receivers
>>>    SHOULD direct the receiving SMTP server to reject the message."
>>> 
>>> Why is there such a recommendation?  What is a mail receiver?  I am
>>> asking the question as there is "receiving SMTP server" in that sentence.
> 
>> That would be silly.  RFC5322.From might contain no DNS domain to begin with.
> 
> It has to contain a domain. If it doesn't it's syntactically invalid. Here's
> the relevant ABNF:
> 
> from            =   "From:" mailbox-list CRLF
> mailbox-list    =   (mailbox *("," mailbox)) / obs-mbox-list
> obs-mbox-list   =   *([CFWS] ",") mailbox *("," [mailbox / CFWS])
> mailbox         =   name-addr / addr-spec
> name-addr       =   [display-name] angle-addr
> angle-addr      =   [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] / obs-angle-addr
> obs-angle-addr  =   [CFWS] "<" obs-route addr-spec ">" [CFWS]
> addr-spec       =   local-part "@" domain
> 
> There's no way through that doesn't include at least one addr-space, which in
> turn contains a domain.
> 
>>> 
>>> In Section 10.1:
>>> 
>>>   "Have no RFC5322.From field (which is also forbidden under RFC 5322
>>>    [MAIL])"
>>> 
>>> Where is it stated in RFC 5322 that it is forbidden?  That RFC
>>> specifies a syntax for the Internet Message Format.
> 
> See the table in section 3.6. It says that the minimum number of from fields
> in the header is 1.
> 
>> Some MTAs (sendmail?) seem to recreate an RFC5322.From from the Envelope,
>> in case that it is missing in the message.
> 
> Indeed they do. It's a reasonable action to take on message submission.
> Relay is more ... interesting.
> 
>                Ned
>