I’ve talked about this before.  I ran into a utility company that I conversed 
with that explicitly didn’t want to use DKIM because they felt their messages 
should not be forwarded to another provider.  I didn’t quite understand the 
logic, but it was their decision.

I definitely favor some language that endorses using both and perhaps even 
outlines the pitfalls of using only one (can’t forward, both gives you a better 
chance of success, etc)

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

From: dmarc <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:44 PM
To: Dotzero <[email protected]>
Cc: Todd Herr <[email protected]>; John Levine <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

We can say that as well, but I want to specifically say "don't use SPF without 
DKIM and expect it to work right;"

b


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:41 PM Dotzero 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:19 PM Barry Leiba 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Maybe just add a sentence to the end of the second paragraph:

   The use of SPF alone, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.

Barry

I think the opposite. Something along the lines of "Sending domains SHOULD 
implement both SPF and DKIM to minimize breakage and non-delivery of mail.

Michael Hammer



On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:04 PM Todd Herr 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Barry Leiba 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of
> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only.

This brings up another issue, I think: that there should also be
stronger advice that using DKIM is critical to DMARC reliability, and
using SPF only, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.
I don't disagree.

How do we make the following text stronger?
5.5.2. 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-27.html*section-5.5.2__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!H87wu6y3e2soX0zP84RFzpVkIns3srnOJHF_OvVIcO6eY0hUFqSYNPCI4pxutzABuCuQJXNB9Xigw7eeIIoCVigM0w$>
 Configure Sending System for DKIM Signing Using an Aligned 
Domain<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-27.html*name-configure-sending-system-fo__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!H87wu6y3e2soX0zP84RFzpVkIns3srnOJHF_OvVIcO6eY0hUFqSYNPCI4pxutzABuCuQJXNB9Xigw7eeIIpXBM2lNg$>

While it is possible to secure a DMARC pass verdict based on only one of SPF or 
DKIM, it is commonly accepted best practice to ensure that both authentication 
mechanisms are in place to guard against failure of just one of them.

This is particularly important because SPF will always fail in situations where 
mail is sent to a forwarding address offered by a professional society, school 
or other institution, where the address simply relays the message to the 
recipient's current "real" address. Many recipients use such addresses and with 
SPF alone and not DKIM, messages sent to such users will always produce DMARC 
fail.

The Domain Owner SHOULD choose a DKIM-Signing domain (i.e., the d= domain in 
the DKIM-Signature header) that aligns with the Author Domain.


--
Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem
e: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
m: 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or 
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized 
to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are 
hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the 
information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. 
Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete 
it from your system.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!H87wu6y3e2soX0zP84RFzpVkIns3srnOJHF_OvVIcO6eY0hUFqSYNPCI4pxutzABuCuQJXNB9Xigw7eeIIrbx80Ukg$>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to