IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spfbis] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 20 July 2014 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9453A1B2871; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 cvnFVvoCpNax; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B071B2875; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.46.25] ([38.99.173.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KGdG3P025101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:19 -0700
Message-ID: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:37:25 -0400
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/U7uBVyzMtOxc3THdYrynEwAamKU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:45:55 -0700
Subject: [spfbis] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:39:22 -0000

Hi folks.

I submitted an Errata on RFC 5321 that was rejected due to logic that is
proving a bit challenging to understand.

     http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4055

So I thought I'd check with the SMTP, SPF and DKIM communities to get
some broader review for the substantive issue, before considering
alternative process paths.

Simply put:

     RFC 5321 has some text about SPF and DKIM that is
     simply wrong.

     Given the continuing community confusion about what
     SPF and DKIM do and do not do, I think that having
     the SMTP document perpetuate erroneous views is
     significantly problematic.

I've checked the archive of around the time the text was introduced.
Other that a brief exchange about the 'nature' of DKIM, I don't see any
messages on this topic.

I'd appreciate comments on the factual issues here.  I don't want to
discuss the Errata process.  Just the technical issues.

If folks think my characterization of the error is either correct or
incorrect, please say so and explain.  If you think it can be documented
better, please offer text!


(I've BCC'd the SPF and DKIM lists, to make sure that everyone there
sees this.  But please post any followups to the SMTP list.)


Thanks!

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email