IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sun, 14 September 2014 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 8F8A31A03D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YYlfyu9NnedD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim.winserver.com (mail.santronics.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2A61A03D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=745; t=1410705654; h=Received:Received: Subject:From:Message-Id:Date:To:Organization:List-ID; bh=0WI35hr mnrxga5/R4DiTIL3hXhs=; b=pPMT9IZTBqbkG4IyCwvnLIOhx6o7LeOPpZHgz1w C2W7shwqwAeRT9X2sbOmZ4W/ZUzhQbJBrvr2UApMacv32H0Ry0DHpn6h9Oc/Mo1I M13t3jWXX97lAwCN3Kn/45r8ulOIfSKZ0YCPYT0R0dBidoqmW60+byiYSsOi9eMD zel0=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:40:54 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (99-121-4-27.lightspeed.miamfl.sbcglobal.net [99.121.4.27]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1595748223.1.2588; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:40:54 -0400
Subject: Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
References: <20140913134907.2020.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <20140913134907.2020.qmail@joyce.lan>
Message-Id: <299EAC72-667A-46D5-9BB9-7ADFEF61A21E@isdg.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:40:51 -0400
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Comment: Missing recipient address appended by wcSMTP router.
To: ietf@ietf.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/afF3snW0b7cV_LKdyS4b6PtBecU
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: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:41:07 -0000

On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>> Agreed, but just wanted to add one thing- doesn't the details of the whether the sender
>> has to align or not depends on whether SPF or DKIM is used as the authentication method?
> 
> No.  Neither DKIM nor SPF have any connection to either the From: or
> Sender: header other than what DMARC is trying to do.

DKIM has a required hash bind to the 5322.From field data -- the only 5322 header signing requirement in DKIM.  It's burned into the now DKIM now STD level specification.  That's not a DMARC requirement, but one DMARC relies on having with DKIM.  

Maybe an errata is in order?   

--
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email