Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 27 December 2016 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0727129513 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:46:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=kXeN+ycT; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=LUwfTry0
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 3B_IXb2DX4Mb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479871299BA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBR6kEeO014248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:46:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1482821183; x=1482907583; bh=Mx1xHZwCvDHZCpMxCcGg2coDbfVQaNcJsRs4emK7zjo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kXeN+ycTGN8fyvW2utOANDj3sgq0QOAIrEN6Ypj9+aoGHETlGuGl9ImidbDIPwK9X uGKKUTPXktE2Xh8mL2eAWv4yUWrm5S7x+M9MAVhcyhkZK5g26f9JGdSYQaMs4s8ij4 nNolPp165tFcbnWggV2gHZSaom+D9NWVBrTw1/Y4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1482821183; x=1482907583; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Mx1xHZwCvDHZCpMxCcGg2coDbfVQaNcJsRs4emK7zjo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=LUwfTry0dcHgtZgvuGOS/EmmjmiIeRCBTZjQrkRgvqa4Sahqu736GhBTxFFSno7Vd dSY0r52mzQNAeV4NsYkIO2dksLhqqFgrCARRKkxHKRP2GRc4y3HM5dZyBxiyxC+kmJ j22bcZ+e1c4Gk654cnDTH9mxIB3fi9aRF3CSSKgk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161226205545.0b5dcf30@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 21:48:05 -0800
To: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@frobbit.se>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman
In-Reply-To: <14F3D5A3-0F8C-41F1-925F-10F73308C5DD@frobbit.se>
References: <001801d25d6a$4c267130$e4735390$@huitema.net> <20161223174224.9677.qmail@ary.lan> <m2y3z5alnh.wl-randy@psg.com> <F8D60ECB-C291-41D1-B313-10F641BE755D@dukhovni.org> <006201d25f63$93f56660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <14F3D5A3-0F8C-41F1-925F-10F73308C5DD@frobbit.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fPU9Gxth23SxEStwrmaNSaN7T5Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 06:46:56 -0000

Hi Tom, Patrik,
At 02:31 26-12-2016, tom p. wrote:
>I note too that e-mails in unusual dialects appear to get footers added
>in text/plain, to identify which list they are on.
>
>I believe that this does not invalid the origin DKIM signature, so I see
>the criterion as always modifying messages but not in a way that
>invalids DKIM signatures.

That modification invalidates the DKIM signature.

At 03:10 26-12-2016, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>Bingo! What should have been some kind of 
>requirement is to define the method of signing 
>the content of portions of a message with some BCP for mailing lists.

There is a BCP for mailing lists.  The IETF 
document was not aligned with the Mailman common 
practices at the time the IETF document was written or now.

>The stress, if I may call it that, today for 
>DKIM is that the signing is not in sync with how mailing lists are run.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy