Re: [spfbis] [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 02 June 2022 18:28 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9DDC15BFF5 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=GKF6QELs; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Tag70kUk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtSwMysGlqSA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1396C14F738 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 59104 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2022 18:27:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e6dd.6299012b.k2206; bh=JdUUKjpuDpilvUsLozD7z3akYFR/s3Vk9TssGbFt4dc=; b=GKF6QELsLn87poQ1Qmeydm+qMHt01ktRIgqis7nbC1WNcmCpWrnLl72RlgiaTHVuCQVEw4Kzc6sljJ96OyJCRxbJ4tqCshi6FKKUCmMrxhx5nyO8TDjohCJ8ENK3yr0AqRaw80aAXU1fEcWGdT6TMVspjYNQv3Wr62/Aa0FAxzBs3b3fSX4FQOpiaJZsYONERct53VB2b9sls3ancAcboaPDizs9NxofUKL5Nin6T3F8TxGRJxEsZJNtbTPJzcuoVPeBWfky4IB8vteI6ZYzS2X/wbbfLf3vuSRk7VRGs+VKYYbvvbGLVeDHNneXGOM+zuiOg+KJxEZsJBFFW9cYNA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=e6dd.6299012b.k2206; bh=JdUUKjpuDpilvUsLozD7z3akYFR/s3Vk9TssGbFt4dc=; b=Tag70kUkIGVAGEB4hbK+nTX21SjLkn2RXYkudEuxfN4xVN+lZVgBe6bwl7uvH7W3aYCfKDS7d/2FCQb0Pkx0vu9kZEY7/+Z4/QHaS9fluLOWp53nF/Ogye8XW3dRo8QyMj82vKMATLZ7HuOZPUlKr/UWx+c7ODBtdFWeEfT55kgB4hfOCy4gUL9R3sEKzJ9Nj4k+OeDbBFbB9/CwTj9L7z/E4f06WVwq1fXRU5S6k8CzEJclv7vKwTg6XGiJoFj1gMMORx6Cqz8tZH9z4RywCcGZn4ob9ybMNF0m7gei8Jkip9ERQPhdE/V3GvdxvYIhJ7QVmYCwslgqPj/BQXjetw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 02 Jun 2022 18:27:55 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id D9CAD42144F5; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 14:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 14:27:53 -0400
Message-Id: <20220602182754.D9CAD42144F5@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Reply-To: spfbis@ietf.org
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <9ef1ec93-e4bf-1dd9-8a89-d84831be4fe6@tana.it>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/DsFlTFJ7egqv4Tr3zCJOjJyYznQ>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [dmarc-ietf] SPF doesn't accommodate third level .name domains?
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 18:28:01 -0000
[[ replies directed to spfbis where they belong ]] It appears that Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> said: >The only droplet is the consideration that if Verisign hasn't got it, there >must be a whole bunch of people who think that sending email is in the 90s. > >That implies we must say something more loudly and more clearly. Assuming this were correct, which it is not, it still has nothing to do with DMARC. >Sorry, but this is not an SPF issue. David's message arrived at IETF with a >helo name of wforward1-smtp.messagingengine.com, which has a correct SPF >record, and a DKIM signature by d=messagingengine.com. Perfectly >authenticated, then, except for alignment. Indeed, and there is no reason to believe the lack of alignment has anything to do with the way some mail systems may handle his mail. He also asked for a special case hack to SPF, which is not going to happen. R's, John