IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 13 March 2019 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872BA131244 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:47:47 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 K1Zt4Tj6SNVr for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FA1131236 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F335E38263; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E973D2D19; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DF0BBD; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5eee9abc-4919-d3f3-9d5c-ec05823cf479@levkowetz.com>
References: <186f4ff4-e31e-80c6-600f-9521694734f0@gmail.com> <656168f7-ed79-e19e-ea73-433cd9b49994@levkowetz.com> <AF03E2FC-A1F4-4585-B40F-9A263035D7BC@frobbit.se> <5eee9abc-4919-d3f3-9d5c-ec05823cf479@levkowetz.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:47:42 -0400
Message-ID: <24441.1552520862@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/XPmS9uMr7eN8h0L770mfy13KOSk>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 23:47:48 -0000

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:
    > On 2019-03-13 00:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
    >> On 13 Mar 2019, at 8:19, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
    >>
    >>> I believe this will make Reply and Reply All work as before, while
    >>> still avoiding the troubles we've seen from using a From: address
    >>> that may look like a forgery.
    >>
    >> May I suggest stopping changing the body of the email messages (by
    >> adding a footer). That way DKIM signatures will work, and the email
    >> will indeed not be defined being forgery which in fact they are as
    >> long as the body is changed.

    > That is a different issue (that will hopefully be solved by ARC, which
    > we hope to deploy soon).

    > Brian is talking about a recent change away from a practice where
    > when a reviewer would enter his review into the datatracker, it would
    > originate a mail purporting to be from <reviewer@reviewers.domain>,
    > and send that out from the server mail.ietf.org, which is not mentioned
    > in the SPF record of reviewers.domain.

    > Since this was becoming increasingly troublesome, as more and more
    > domains were adopting stricter SPF settings, we've stopped sending
    > mail purporting to be sent by <reviewer@reviewers.domain>, and are
    > now sending from <noreply@ietf.org>, but we missed adding a Reply-To:
    > header field that would make replies work as before.

Wouldn't the @dmarc.ietf.org mangling have also been an option?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email