From nobody Wed Sep 2 01:43:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B181AC3C7 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cgdbTC0fIUAe for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3797A1A9055 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BBA3C4071E for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 03:43:27 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1441183407; bh=6zAN29ZFFoEQTtgsJW6+WK0vCUTmCA3EJVnvhDbXGQc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ga+pP6Xc4amPFHYKxZi50i41Qz9NZWrMIJ0C1x1IQ9e9YZyEHFsaNZZ646d5gMESa cuaq50tlaZbUBfqVMOslEzaCpkvqDZnstbA8QrtLI0NCwHJpuWzozGYX22T/iBhzdS Z+qHgOAbQcpntyNa3Wfe2fEZi7RwwyNofgFhuyps= From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:43:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4730002.fbpD2poPpU@kitterma-e6430> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-58-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20150829010252.17873.92899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150829010252.17873.92899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-06.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 08:43:33 -0000 On Friday, August 28, 2015 06:02:52 PM internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message > Authentication, Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF. ... I've reviewed the diff from the last version and I think we're getting there. I do have a few additional comments: On page 5, in the revised paragraph of section 2.1, I think there's a word or so missing in the changed text around SPF HELO. I think it would read better if the constructs about RFC5321.MailFrom and RFC5321.HELO/EHLO were more parallel. I think either one of these would serve: The DMARC relevant Authenticated Identifier that SPF provides is the RFC7208.MAILFROM [RFC7208] based on the RFC5321.MailFrom [RFC5321] domain, or, if the RFC5321.MailFrom address is absent (as in the case of "bounce"messages, on the RFC5321.HELO/EHLO SMTP domain. or The DMARC relevant Authenticated Identifier that SPF provides is the RFC7208.MAILFROM [RFC7208] based on the domain found in the RFC5321.MailFrom [RFC5321] command, or, if the RFC5321.MailFrom address is absent (as in the case of "bounce"messages, on the on the domain found in the RFC5321.HELO/EHLO SMTP command. In the revised text on page 15 where the paragraph starts "MTAs sending email on behalf of multiple domains ...", the text is improved from the last revision, but I think it would be even better to say just "... avoid DMARC alignment issues." rather than "... avoide DMARC alignment issues with SPF." These same issues can come up with DKIM as well, so there's no point in being overly narrow here. On page 19, the second security consideration that's been added should be removed. It's not a security consideration and is, in fact, the opposite of what the referenced paragraph says. Scott K From nobody Mon Sep 7 00:07:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A231ACE90 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 00:07:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YuaOWI2kLI8U for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8C11ACE63 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx14.mailtransaction.com (mx11.mailtransaction.com [88.198.59.230]) by mx20.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3n8gfd66Myz1L8n7 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jaguar.sonnection.nl (D57E1702.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.126.23.2]) by mx14.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3n8gfd40VPz5Mgff for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8481234D4 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sonnection.nl Received: from jaguar.sonnection.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jaguar.sonnection.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6b2gGAP-ZxfY for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.49] (unknown [192.168.1.49]) by jaguar.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 510AD123398 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:34 +0200 (CEST) To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <20150818020902.30524.83899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" Message-ID: <55ED37B2.4000807@sonnection.nl> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150818020902.30524.83899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1441609657; bh=sQpRHf+YUzF9hFQW0HZUWS4qiUrODqHQvP1ZYJGhGJQ=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:From; b=Gs3+71EzzFvjtPHtMV1jk8CB8f2AK89wqtrqArEiHz7CWzljMMbJOt9R61BovKfcP Sk7kmboFJlos+71v1Jl/rxTMvEbH5Hd3RaI3I4Cl0WIWsE2Tf9gToZVZMu2Kfl7M+O 6u9T/546/AXwT/ZQC4bFRM82p89tDCpn6NI1kt5I= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx20.mailtransaction.com 3n8gfd66Myz1L8n7 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-05.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 07:07:42 -0000 On 18-08-15 04:09, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows > Authors : Franck Martin > Eliot Lear > Tim Draegen > Elizabeth Zwicky > Kurt Andersen > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-05.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2015-08-17 > > Abstract: > DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and > preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting. > The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when > messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain > to the final recipients. Collectively these email flows are referred > to as indirect email flows. This document describes interoperability > issues between DMARC and indirect email flows. Possible methods for > addressing interoperability issues are presented. I've reviewed version -05 and have only one comment (about text which is not new in this version). I think par. 3.2.5 - Boundary Filters should be removed from this document. After all, SPF, DKIM and DMARC have always been positioned as 'edge' technologies, where (primarily) the edge MTA's of both author administrative domain and final recipients administrative domain provide authententication, validation and disposition. So although all of par. 3.2.5 is true, IMHO it does not belong in a document with title 'Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and _Indirect_ Email Flows'. As an alternative we could change the scope of the entire document, by leaving par. 3.2.5 where it is now, changing the title of the document to 'Interoperability Issues when using DMARC' and re-think the use of the word 'indirect' throughout the document (some 12 places in the text). It may be better to move section 3.2.5 to some future to be written BCP about the use of DMARC (and SPF and DKIM) in general. /rolf From nobody Thu Sep 17 12:16:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598BE1A6FA9 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 cGyPTlXUryBt for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wsget2.nist.gov (wsget2.nist.gov [129.6.13.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886291A6F99 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget2.nist.gov (129.6.13.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:47:53 -0400 Received: from postmark.nist.gov (129.6.16.94) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.406.0; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:48:11 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (114-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.114]) by postmark.nist.gov (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id t8HEm3tu014229; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:48:07 -0400 To: From: Stephen Nightingale X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55FAD2A3.1080002@nist.gov> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:48:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NIST-MailScanner-Information: Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:16:35 -0700 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic Reports X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:48:21 -0000 I have been looking at Forensic Report generation and I note that the specification points to a number of different sources: - rfc7489 DMARC points to rfc6591 AFRF, plus DMARC additions in section 7.3.1 - 6591 specifies additions to the Abuse Reporting Format, rfc5965. - rfc5965 ARF lightly references rfc3462, the Multipart/Report content type. I am teasing this out to generate actual reports. Re-ordering the evolving spec elements gives: - rfc3462 Multipart/Report - modified by rfc5965 Abuse Reporting Format - modified by rfc6591 Authentication Failure Reporting Format using ARF - with the addition of rfc6651 AFRF-DKIM - and rfc6652 AFRF-SPF - modified by rfc7489 DMARC, section 7.3.1. Is there an updated and clarified public spec somewhere, along similar lines? Would it be useful to create such a spec, and possibly include it as an appendix to any future update to rfc7489? I am willing to pull this together if this would be a useful contribution. Stephen Nightingale, NIST From nobody Thu Sep 17 16:30:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3D21A874C for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 8Bvt_-_2sywJ for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (mx-out.zmailcloud.com [192.198.85.98]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43531A874A for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (smtp.01.com [10.10.0.43]) by mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E69C564250; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F5AA03E7; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53KvkYOFrSv2; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFB4A03EE; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:45 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.4 smtp-out-1.01.com BEFB4A03EE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=peachymango.org; s=61F775A4-4A7F-11E4-A6BB-61E3068E35F6; t=1442532645; bh=dQPi2P6Ykrwg1pwlxKLfxIBToFFyPL46K1iYQZfgeU0=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=oTYSyvXA+QqEoM7ttL68+DzLuQ2OM9dKtPx8Y5yGZmFUlk4bsOeh8rLGLl6WRJxyF YDlrJGh0gSrGsvIrcDD168vzInqCn7OlTh4cQLZkKp676olKX1g9BVliC2V1NWCKMv Id24aMeykNrB3KxAUOGlJZ44PePvPQEUyeTCuDGU= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A763BA03ED; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:45 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id cCF7WXF1N4Yj; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail-2.01.com (mail.01.com [10.10.0.41]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BFCA03E7; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:45 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:30:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Franck Martin To: Stephen Nightingale Message-ID: <2067604849.74418.1442532643657.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> In-Reply-To: References: <55FAD2A3.1080002@nist.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.5_GA_5839 (ZimbraWebClient - FF40 (Mac)/8.0.5_GA_5839) Thread-Topic: Forensic Reports Thread-Index: Ik3a14Dr1o6M4N616N8N44oYcGSu1Q== Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic Reports X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:30:48 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Nightingale" > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:48:03 AM > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic Reports > > > I have been looking at Forensic Report generation and I note that the > specification points to a number of different sources: > > - rfc7489 DMARC points to rfc6591 AFRF, plus DMARC additions in section > 7.3.1 > - 6591 specifies additions to the Abuse Reporting Format, rfc5965. > - rfc5965 ARF lightly references rfc3462, the Multipart/Report content type. > > I am teasing this out to generate actual reports. Re-ordering the > evolving spec elements gives: > > - rfc3462 Multipart/Report > - modified by rfc5965 Abuse Reporting Format > - modified by rfc6591 Authentication Failure Reporting Format using ARF > - with the addition of rfc6651 AFRF-DKIM > - and rfc6652 AFRF-SPF > - modified by rfc7489 DMARC, section 7.3.1. > > Is there an updated and clarified public spec somewhere, along similar > lines? Would it be useful to create such a spec, and possibly include it > as an appendix to any future update to rfc7489? I am willing to pull > this together if this would be a useful contribution. We like to call them now "Failure Reports" because "forensic" gets the Snowden alarm on.... You may want to look at this code: https://github.com/linkedin/dmarc-msys/blob/master/dmarc.lua#L440 From nobody Fri Sep 18 08:09:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3016F1B2DED for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hL1Ley7xeYkT for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wsget1.nist.gov (wsget1.nist.gov [129.6.13.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADE521B2DD7 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget1.nist.gov (129.6.13.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:10:31 -0400 Received: from postmark.nist.gov (129.6.16.94) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.406.0; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:09:07 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (114-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.114]) by postmark.nist.gov (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id t8IF8qoi010132; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:08:56 -0400 To: Franck Martin References: <55FAD2A3.1080002@nist.gov> <2067604849.74418.1442532643657.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> From: Stephen Nightingale X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55FC2904.1090007@nist.gov> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:08:52 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2067604849.74418.1442532643657.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NIST-MailScanner-Information: Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Failure Reports WAS Re: Forensic Reports X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:09:15 -0000 On 9/17/2015 7:30 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stephen Nightingale" >> >> I have been looking at Forensic Report generation and I note that the >> specification points to a number of different sources: >> > We like to call them now "Failure Reports" because "forensic" gets the Snowden alarm on.... > > You may want to look at this code: > https://github.com/linkedin/dmarc-msys/blob/master/dmarc.lua#L440 Thanks, that's an interesting datapoint. Is there an example of an actual failure report produced? -- Other than the rather generic and ancient one in rfc6591 Appendix B? There is no example anywhere in rfc7489. I could reverse engineer from an actual report instance better than from lua code, into (a) a free-standing written spec and/or (b) a Python implementation. Cheers, Stephen Nightingale, NIST. From nobody Fri Sep 18 20:37:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48131B45C7 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 zUqKWOmaG1Uy for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0275D1B45C6 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgx61 with SMTP id 61so53854210qgx.3 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=sjrgMsGSvS2kWB8K7NTq3F5rkTIXFjQCatmGyfaofVY=; b=y0XD/1Uwmmzf/8xvq1vZQQR25+SrwTMJgIvSIehLAosbcZd4Rw+anlscPiZgEiX7l3 nkBWhbVk1b9M7e0k+O0VZKrfVLpaqshW77E86E59Dj5Qp6jproliQTxPGxCX6yRndIEt I8iu9PXENXR4Z6phlMEPdia8BDp+MzOF70SJfJWWMG2Sv6kEZ0jsx8VM1HSx2zDRa87V iwXNySxAAqwH7bLgOUu7QTFd1Pu+SSZfK36SLDHm1evxXsziFLpNVSP/lVv0Eqjydupq v0k3zhMxfGkq07rC84c+IhuRuKgk/EYOjEoLtHRjKm0XO3U6slE/G2qBhUqNw1+OfFwO 2oQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.38.82 with SMTP id s76mr10342253qgs.18.1442633833175; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.55.198.11 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55FAD2A3.1080002@nist.gov> References: <55FAD2A3.1080002@nist.gov> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Stephen Nightingale Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c137ee2ae28d0520115d25 Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic Reports X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 03:37:15 -0000 --001a11c137ee2ae28d0520115d25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Stephen Nightingale wrote: > > I have been looking at Forensic Report generation and I note that the > specification points to a number of different sources: > > - rfc7489 DMARC points to rfc6591 AFRF, plus DMARC additions in section > 7.3.1 > - 6591 specifies additions to the Abuse Reporting Format, rfc5965. > - rfc5965 ARF lightly references rfc3462, the Multipart/Report content > type. > > I am teasing this out to generate actual reports. Re-ordering the > evolving spec elements gives: > > - rfc3462 Multipart/Report > - modified by rfc5965 Abuse Reporting Format > - modified by rfc6591 Authentication Failure Reporting Format using ARF > - with the addition of rfc6651 AFRF-DKIM > - and rfc6652 AFRF-SPF > - modified by rfc7489 DMARC, section 7.3.1. > > Is there an updated and clarified public spec somewhere, along similar > lines? Would it be useful to create such a spec, and possibly include it > as an appendix to any future update to rfc7489? I am willing to pull > this together if this would be a useful contribution. > > There's nothing more current than what you've found. If the kind of thing you're asking for would be useful to the community, it could be done as a section or appendix of the IETF version of the DMARC proposed standard (when we get around to doing that). -MSK --001a11c137ee2ae28d0520115d25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Stephen Nightingale <night@= nist.gov> wrote:

I have been looking at Forensic Report generation and I note that the
specification points to a number of different sources:

- rfc7489 DMARC points to rfc6591 AFRF, plus DMARC additions in section
7.3.1
- 6591 specifies additions to the Abuse Reporting Format, rfc5965.
- rfc5965 ARF lightly references rfc3462, the Multipart/Report content type= .

I am teasing this out to generate actual reports.=C2=A0 Re-ordering the
evolving spec elements gives:

- rfc3462 Multipart/Report
- modified by rfc5965 Abuse Reporting Format
- modified by rfc6591 Authentication Failure Reporting Format using ARF
- with the addition of rfc6651 AFRF-DKIM
- and rfc6652 AFRF-SPF
- modified by rfc7489 DMARC, section 7.3.1.

Is there an updated and clarified public spec somewhere, along similar
lines? Would it be useful to create such a spec, and possibly include it as an appendix to any future update to rfc7489?=C2=A0 I am willing to pull<= br> this together if this would be a useful contribution.

<= div>
There's nothing more current than what you've fo= und.=C2=A0 If the kind of thing you're asking for would be useful to th= e community, it could be done as a section or appendix of the IETF version = of the DMARC proposed standard (when we get around to doing that).

<= /div>
-MSK
--001a11c137ee2ae28d0520115d25-- From nobody Tue Sep 29 07:25:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0D71A1AAE; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:59:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 4LHm_DGMVmY7; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0EC11A1A9E; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:59:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150929055948.22182.42201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:59:48 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:25:55 -0700 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:59:49 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF. Title : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows Authors : Franck Martin Eliot Lear Tim Draegen Elizabeth Zwicky Kurt Andersen Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2015-09-28 Abstract: DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting. The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain to the final recipients. Collectively these email flows are referred to as indirect email flows. This document describes interoperability issues between DMARC and indirect email flows. Possible methods for addressing interoperability issues are presented. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Sep 29 07:34:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408AD1B4206 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 pk_RxpLbVnG2 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21FA1A9115 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (unknown [68.235.251.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF9C1CB46 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Draegen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:34:44 -0400 To: dmarc Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:34:48 -0000 Hi All, The editing team deems this draft as ready for last call review. Here = are the links to the recently posted v07: > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07= =3D- Tim From nobody Tue Sep 29 10:09:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B3B1ACE48 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:09:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 EyrQAdMOjgMS for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F711ACE47 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 79241 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2015 17:09:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2015 17:09:12 -0000 Date: 29 Sep 2015 17:08:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20150929170849.13962.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:09:15 -0000 I refreshed this draft so it wouldn't expire. Not very different, mostly changed the @fs= to !fs= per Murray's suggestion. I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let mailing lists coexist with DMARC. R's, John From nobody Wed Sep 30 02:13:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D791B2D34 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:13:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 HuqRZSvpcxZr for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778031B2D27 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:13:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1443604412; bh=CYy4gHHPH7AFMagphqEyXzDJL/8XQ6KsTv7ebiSqj/k=; l=1180; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=mxBJHRHUio85PZp23W12zeIUBvuIuRcAxJcaYWsyXTDfAm0sixWiM6zorqs/2pka0 Ccz21OfN6A874WvVPeRHOAlRIgWHR8vAkDYG8d5J+CmjzAeqRLSvVyZgFxuvXfF//5 a+n0aOjHUAoXgIhHXWzu2Ercfd7wbpVj01lo+TC4= Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted) Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:13:32 +0200 id 00000000005DC059.00000000560BA7BC.00007C6C Message-ID: <560BA7BC.5010206@tana.it> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:13:32 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> In-Reply-To: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:13:39 -0000 On Tue 29/Sep/2015 16:34:44 +0200 Tim Draegen wrote: > > The editing team deems this draft as ready for last call review. Section 4.2 mentions dkim-conditional. (IMHO, the latter should be named draft-dmarc-dkim-conditional.) Both Section 4.2: This DKIM signature would come with the condition that a subsequent known domain fully DKIM sign the message. and Section 4 of dkim-conditional: A sender that expects a message to be forwarded might put both a conventional DKIM signature and a signature with a !fs tag that refers to the domain name of the expected forwarder. require conventional, full DKIM signatures. Why? It seems to me that any DMARC authentication method could suffice. That is, the author domain (!fs signer) could be SPF authenticated by the MLM; and the MLM could be SPF authenticated by list recipients. No? In case the !fs signature is missing, it may be handy to have the resender issue a forensic report. That way, a sender could automatically set up its signing daemon to add a tag "!fs=mlm.example" to mail destined to, say, "list@mlm.example", where the latter address is extracted from that report. jm2c Ale From nobody Wed Sep 30 05:52:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33241A6FE8 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:52:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 iTHx0PoDCVM1 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com (ntbbs.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CCA1A6FF8 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:52:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=473; t=1443617559; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=hhODazqn0Ilxgsm9tbyK+W6L7Cc=; b=GPLXxU54ysgWikALcQnrHaWlNB9uvMBlNzZvaWlSl4XvhrjePyiLPXgPg94X8X b8KF4MB122mBww+fqyPrBDL+3HsV5NMHo0PsFYF+rAnHYO+AUjRiep9ZWRpjPiqo sZSmh0W6sYlCatj7wwnQZNsiwMadx8uPYZS2KuzVguuNk= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:52:39 -0400 Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=none author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer); Received: from beta.winserver.com (hector.wildcatblog.com [208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 79416910.5150.2376; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:52:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=473; t=1443617025; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=9cXLiGa 3U3GAC3m7p8KPqKra3pr4mkWUAAad514GCc0=; b=k6WoEcgEaRfANP6u3UoxS9D APRvI+SyN8UH/ZahKVtdURJJUKsDFVIE64INnFazXyXkxe3TBIBHMkyFcHjsaQOw 5t5k7Ow86HF04YLhlLP/ctpWUN5uVyzP1dgOjMIZNjOWZn/Rcjw5QXPe9JB6KGyL 2iBry8eYbIZKx/TKLHOE= Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:43:45 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([99.121.4.27]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 3034658913.9.41160; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:43:44 -0400 Message-ID: <560BDB0D.2070809@isdg.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:52:29 -0400 From: Hector Santos Organization: Santronics Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <20150929170849.13962.qmail@ary.lan> In-Reply-To: <20150929170849.13962.qmail@ary.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:52:51 -0000 On 9/29/2015 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote: > I refreshed this draft so it wouldn't expire. Not very different, > mostly changed the @fs= to !fs= per Murray's suggestion. > > I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let > mailing lists coexist with DMARC. I am going to look at adding support for this in our Wildcat! List Server package. Seems simple enough via a template system. Lets see how it works. Thanks for keeping it alive. -- HLS From nobody Wed Sep 30 07:42:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA49D1B2DC7 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 JfVECqHK899o for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 638601B2D2B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 39445 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2015 14:42:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2015 14:42:42 -0000 Date: 30 Sep 2015 14:42:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20150930144219.17690.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <560BA7BC.5010206@tana.it> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: vesely@tana.it Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:42:43 -0000 > A sender that expects a message to be forwarded might put both a > conventional DKIM signature and a signature with a !fs tag that > refers to the domain name of the expected forwarder. > > require conventional, full DKIM signatures. Why? It seems to me that any >DMARC authentication method could suffice. That is, the author domain (!fs >signer) could be SPF authenticated by the MLM; and the MLM could be SPF >authenticated by list recipients. No? You're mixing levels here. dkim-conditional describes a new way to create a valid DKIM signature. I wouldn't want to try to describe how a DKIM validator is supposed to stop and take a detour through an SPF validator to decide what to do next. R's, John PS: the draft looks fine to me From nobody Wed Sep 30 07:48:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D621B3FFF for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:48:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Fe32l0oa_XiH for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx10.mailtransaction.com (mx10.mailtransaction.com [88.198.59.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD971B3E4C for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx24.mailtransaction.com (mx21.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.236]) by mx10.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3nR0nQ0xrbz5Mgff; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jaguar.sonnection.nl (D57E1702.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.126.23.2]) by mx24.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3nR0nP6SNLz1L8n8; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA5A12358A; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sonnection.nl Received: from jaguar.sonnection.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jaguar.sonnection.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id U1u3ZgCHmGrB; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jaguar.sonnection.nl (jaguar.sonnection.nl [192.168.1.21]) by jaguar.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A29C12356C; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:48:03 +0200 (CEST) From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" To: Tim Draegen Message-ID: <1589323198.25621.1443624483724.JavaMail.root@sonnection.nl> In-Reply-To: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> References: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [193.177.236.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.0_GA_5434 (ZimbraWebClient - FF41 (Linux)/8.0.0_GA_5434) Thread-Topic: Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" Thread-Index: 6reco9OC97BMIfsSPSqQBWOcs3ikCw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1443624490; bh=W/koa/+Iw/2de85Uwvld4pOxHzrjFfQLCs+8gOp/NNA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:From; b=dpInWP3TzAf4iHIgbFpP/belYegE5ENewfkiUj6QW+rvRRpGzBomXCSfldqVHPP+K 4XPdJ5iTBdInyd2uZho6niDfd3FrpQqEe9d98fGWPI+hLN+KhVHdR+EBdpTMutg4cf 4DKEoZZZ2u/YlVsriM+TkriM6Ovia7e6/LM7os68= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx10.mailtransaction.com 3nR0nQ0xrbz5Mgff Archived-At: Cc: dmarc Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:48:15 -0000 Hi, Tim, on Sep 7th, I sent a short review of -05, see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg02942.html. I didn't see any response, the paragraph I suggested to remove (par. 3.2.5) is still present in -07. Can anyone comment on the suggestion to move section 3.2.5 to some (future) BCP document? /rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Draegen" > To: "dmarc" > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 4:34:44 PM > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" > > Hi All, > > The editing team deems this draft as ready for last call review. > Here are the links to the recently posted v07: > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 > > > =- Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > From nobody Wed Sep 30 08:36:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFE21B5E3E for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:36:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 LJeA-DoBc9Jh for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.somaf.de (mail.somaf.de [IPv6:2001:a60:f0b4:e503:2cdb:beff:feaa:880b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7832A1A878A for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from andreasschulze.de (andreasschulze.de [IPv6:2001:a60:f0b4:e503:d86e:8dce:a73e:2fec]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: sca@andreasschulze.de) by mail.somaf.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nR1rk3h28zDvn for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:36:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=andreasschulze.de; s=ybz; t=1443627366; bh=u7zkyETXc14fd1K8gl/ufsyyS+aHvs2GkAqITTI55P8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=qX9XTHw+Ia1so+IcMCpOPACMPhwBJ9WMt4jdqEKohDVFVYsosCPGgMV3ly5XuUPtV ORLrwfSkDqB6vGSNt7kBJ6sz6nFcwLEsxAC6kM9zL0xcNCl4OdCXsQh+90zapbb90/ 6dfp+m82rjIZwRn0thf4/Zf+8pVZvETyff1zqR6xz39iiEehgHZq0F+pCuSDAXyGrf ++PIC3JE3U3X+NI3sO+HUBAQcC4q7Zs41FYh2Npf9ppaC8QGtqNLQBqxYAnyD/q6C6 IKfofThCS6I3rWfxZQcKIxsCHUdCWqAjr2yKfe4BVVioIkt9jkIQ05asbaN2qT39Mv A1Iiz5dip1RwA== Received: from prx18.datevnet.de (prx18.datevnet.de [2a00:e50:f155:b:59aa:d137:8293:9f91]) by andreasschulze.de (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:36:04 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:36:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20150930173604.Horde.wUs1YZ0RODWT0k12XqCWgJr@andreasschulze.de> From: "A. Schulze" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20150929170849.13962.qmail@ary.lan> User-Agent: Horde Application Framework 5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:36:11 -0000 John Levine: > I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let > mailing lists coexist with DMARC. reads like a good idea. The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org" So opendkim in my case has to be extended to lookup "rcpt domain" -> "!fs value" Did I understand that correct? Andreas From nobody Wed Sep 30 08:45:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518571B4456 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:32 -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 NI8L0AlPSRcB for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:31 -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 85FB91A878A for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8UFjUEJ016738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:31 -0700 References: <20150930173604.Horde.wUs1YZ0RODWT0k12XqCWgJr@andreasschulze.de> To: dmarc@ietf.org From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <560C0394.5000608@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:24 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150930173604.Horde.wUs1YZ0RODWT0k12XqCWgJr@andreasschulze.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:45:32 -0000 > The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org > an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org" An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be made. There are multiple levels of knowledge and action this this setting requires and average end-users cannot be relied to know or perform any of them. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Wed Sep 30 11:17:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AE11A8886 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.012 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 qHGD-ei8tbpQ for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCC01A8885 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PRCUBCQI34014H8J@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1443636716; bh=+0oxrpeK+TKcd3oTVaW3fnFE+r047VS00ZgBhKZLkN0=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=PVf5DRFNEjmZeiSkGO23tLG4MN3XikZP9fsyVGMUcrbl9Abot+Ac8FDHHAePzYYMk kX4Z86B4HX4+IPNB+i3DOXn8330u2fxkAmouMPjKRXj69qTNC55U3eqGgYqnrEneIG CsCkM2o40G+646TIb2zACzdLBb2XHyX8D78N3S3k= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; Format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PR32RXA3OW00HE89@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Message-id: <01PRCUB8INBU00HE89@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:52:29 -0400" <560BDB0D.2070809@isdg.net> References: <20150929170849.13962.qmail@ary.lan> <560BDB0D.2070809@isdg.net> To: Hector Santos Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:17:10 -0000 > On 9/29/2015 1:08 PM, John Levine wrote: > > I refreshed this draft so it wouldn't expire. Not very different, > > mostly changed the @fs= to !fs= per Murray's suggestion. > > > > I still think this is the least broken way I've seen to let > > mailing lists coexist with DMARC. > I am going to look at adding support for this in our Wildcat! List > Server package. Seems simple enough via a template system. Lets see > how it works. > Thanks for keeping it alive. FWIW, I agree that this is technology we should pursue. Ned From nobody Wed Sep 30 11:26:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2ECA1A88B4 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OAR9iLRkECFl for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (mx-out.zmailcloud.com [192.198.85.98]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BB11A88CE for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (smtp.01.com [10.10.0.43]) by mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EE1564164; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF9360256; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ob9Z_IsXqsQn; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AF260249; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.4 smtp-out-2.01.com 49AF260249 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=peachymango.org; s=61F775A4-4A7F-11E4-A6BB-61E3068E35F6; t=1443637590; bh=Dz8mROHgVlk8WVdtyGtmtEUunLGFMKr7WRnu2+7aIwQ=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=U241fiVohd6Pf0nHKDcXpSwkyt2/QIS6HAbCevPtmkrCSUO4t/rnSPTNpxhQI53Ab ZzVkB4vtxBgNzQjxpyZV8TV6cALx7qlPq8YK6dqEB7QkdKN3nKY3dQhJzcCKWl1M0D GKwXmFcsGN07G0SfHJ9h6OjpKRdJAGkhU7rqxTSo= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335A060256; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GAP_0SF7QrNe; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail-2.01.com (mail.01.com [10.10.0.41]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1796960249; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:26:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Franck Martin To: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" Message-ID: <2143326323.42254.1443637584568.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> In-Reply-To: References: <38DF8215-6550-4678-98EC-B03A99C22161@eudaemon.net> <1589323198.25621.1443624483724.JavaMail.root@sonnection.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.5_GA_5839 (ZimbraWebClient - FF40 (Mac)/8.0.5_GA_5839) Thread-Topic: Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" Thread-Index: 6reco9OC97BMIfsSPSqQBWOcs3ikC0PFEj/6 Archived-At: Cc: dmarc , Tim Draegen Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:26:40 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" > To: "Tim Draegen" > Cc: "dmarc" > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:48:03 AM > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email > Flows" > > Hi, Tim, > > on Sep 7th, I sent a short review of -05, see > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg02942.html. I didn't > see any response, the paragraph I suggested to remove (par. 3.2.5) is still > present in -07. Can anyone comment on the suggestion to move section 3.2.5 > to some (future) BCP document? > I don't like to remove stuff that is still useful, and as I did not see any support for the removal to an hypothetical future BCP... But I'm happy to do a revision. From nobody Wed Sep 30 17:39:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AEE1A0318 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:39:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 usQmKiuaSlRQ for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEBFF1A7113 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26090 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2015 00:39:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2015 00:39:29 -0000 Date: 1 Oct 2015 00:39:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <560C0394.5000608@dcrocker.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:39:31 -0000 >> The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org >> an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org" > >An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be >made. Quite correct. I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like mailing lists to decide who gets them. >From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of the large mail systems already have such a list of domains, so the implementation should be straightforward. Small domains may not, in which case there's a variety of ways they could approximate it, e.g., sniff incoming mail for stuff that looks like list mail to create a list, cooperate on a shared database of mailing list domains, or most likely admit that they are too small to be phish targets so publishing a DMARC policy is counterproductive. R's, John From nobody Wed Sep 30 17:44:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4391ACDA3 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:44:13 -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 AJCFWTC9j93i for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:44:12 -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 A2C771ACDA2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t910i91k002192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:44:10 -0700 References: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> To: John Levine , dmarc@ietf.org From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <560C81CD.2020202@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:43:57 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:44:13 -0000 On 9/30/2015 5:39 PM, John Levine wrote: > I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by > large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like > mailing lists to decide who gets them. > >>From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of > the large mail systems already have such a list of domains, so the > implementation should be straightforward. Some degree of documenting this requirement and its plausible solution(s) is called for, in order to establish that the model being pursued here has a reasonable chance of being viable. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Wed Sep 30 17:49:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE951ACDC6 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:49:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 1opAsSDBIxPT for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCDCB1ACDC3 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27373 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2015 00:49:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=6aeb.560c8322.k1509; bh=IfALv5acMh/u06FDcQ309IhsgQMujPmMAy6RZN7H09Q=; b=UZnDuMutduEl9wiXI+CMxyTUdT2IsSLfRmjHrPJOyqECzSgEiBKAPdfzmZifjbseM1R8oTrjQusmHU+0EuLNNQbXCKxiuHSErtYF7qPC/4dlXSJnrJNtoTwfuF4t6BgBU4cZ4SeSVMlBZjNAHCuo+amHD1TUrc/373bKFs9ADT4SHKoyaqPsIgEQboQBUMQ1Sv3lWLP8c0Sodt4+ZSxzfdieh+YzsubodMq/pgtF9hEdDxydI8Q9AQfI7MGBzTDl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=6aeb.560c8322.k1509; bh=IfALv5acMh/u06FDcQ309IhsgQMujPmMAy6RZN7H09Q=; b=cS4rmyXN5b63VrOR31oyeEMeD2GDyBNaUu4IfaqYJWq/gVY+otB+u16T7JZRytU+nX2oAmjSeQzS9pa6EOppYNsH1mPvDx6Kv7rLWWl16BdkuM0XArqlRtUN68+UQj8xmgLLBAjrX9rLd++OqmLmxoTiOTYGg/Mx/s88DdR0VcGXuMDVcbsLJwjPNIOICcjmVLSF7B/A0jzPREqXzcQWZwo6DTD+HaWN4wdupu3OQnT6R+cCnlg6CSCrVmLZb1fU Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 01 Oct 2015 00:49:37 -0000 Date: 30 Sep 2015 20:49:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: dcrocker@bbiw.net In-Reply-To: <560C81CD.2020202@dcrocker.net> References: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> <560C81CD.2020202@dcrocker.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:49:40 -0000 >> I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by >> large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like >> mailing lists to decide who gets them. >> >>> From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of >> the large mail systems already have such a list of domains, so the >> implementation should be straightforward. > > Some degree of documenting this requirement and its plausible > solution(s) is called for, in order to establish that the model being > pursued here has a reasonable chance of being viable. I'll try and collect some data at MAAWG next month and rev the draft. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. From nobody Wed Sep 30 19:08:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8AD1ACE9A for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 X-QlL_l2UcQM for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [184.105.179.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A57E1ACE98 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from satsuke.wordtothewise.com (204.11.227.194.static.etheric.net [204.11.227.194]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EF8A805A5 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:08:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1443665284; bh=7RXEMAJoXCm+UV5FGI/sUKSL+3+Ar2GfzC43AUPG0ko=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:From; b=ROkMK7Lr06sjO7liW0dIJJxqaz7z8GcVRXxejxbuV9ctJyuOp3CQn5Jp9Y3mMvPBr 3s98WgXNq+V6ZsQIbZiVZ844IOlN4jApi2k4G9JgVCF92NRdu+38oLTAVxISIqL/x2 1whSqnMdUen/eIXRInmAmzy9KtcubHglC59CYFdE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:08:03 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> To: dmarc X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:08:06 -0000 > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:39 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>> The local signer here must know this message goes to dmarc@ietf.org >>> an add a signature including "!fs=ietg.org" >> >> An average email author cannot be relied on to cause this setting to be >> made. > > Quite correct. I would expect conditional signatures to be applied by > large mail systems, using their private list of domains that look like > mailing lists to decide who gets them. How much of a barrier to entry to new or small mailing list providers (or new domains being used there) does this cause? > From the past couple of years of discussion, it is clear that all of > the large mail systems already have such a list of domains, so the > implementation should be straightforward. > > Small domains may not, in which case there's a variety of ways they > could approximate it, e.g., sniff incoming mail for stuff that looks > like list mail to create a list, cooperate on a shared database of > mailing list domains, or most likely admit that they are too small to > be phish targets so publishing a DMARC policy is counterproductive. Cheers, Steve From steve@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp Wed Sep 30 21:15:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D891AD0A6 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.098 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 OZC7SVDk3W70 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.96.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 881C01AD0A5 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from steve by turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhVH2-0002CH-I1; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:15:16 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22028.45908.482034.972621@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:15:16 +0900 From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" To: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: References: <20151001003906.19178.qmail@ary.lan> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 698a9aa86de4 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-apple-darwin14.5.0) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: steve@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Cc: dmarc Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-levine-dkim-conditional-02 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 05:58:59 -0000 Steve Atkins writes: > How much of a barrier to entry to new or small mailing list providers > (or new domains being used there) does this cause? That depends on how badly a missing conditional signature "deprecates" a list. There are three ways deprecation can happen: 1. By reducing the risk of false positives, recipients may be encouraged to lower the threshold at which a message is considered spam. I think that is unlikely to be a strong effect. 2. Some recipient domains may be tempted to *add* "spamminess" to indirect messages without conditional signature, rather than *subtract* (or in addition to subtracting) spamminess in the presence of a valid conditional signature. I don't know how likely that is to be a significant effect, but it seems unlikely to me at the current p=reject domains. 3. Some recipient domains may be encourage to specify p=reject DMARC policies. I think this unlikely. So yes, there is obviously a competitive advantage to lists that are already on the "conditional signature" list of providers that specify p=reject. But I don't think it raises a new barrier to entry for small/new lists. Steve