[dmarc-ietf] Protocols All The Way Down (long - sorry)

2023-07-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
I've been thinking about the thread on ditching SPF relative to DMARC. DMARC is built on other protocols. Piles of them. DMARC is built most directly on DNS, DKIM, and SPF. It is also built on SMTP and Email. DKIM and SPF are also built on DNS and SMTP (SPF) or Email (DKIM). These protocols

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-10 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Mon 10/Jul/2023 17:50:54 +0200 John Levine wrote: FYI, the IETF's mail relay for role accounts like WG chairs breaks DKIM signatures. It's a bug, but it took quite a while to realize what the problem was, since some signatures get through OK. It's an old python library helpfully tidying up th

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-10 Thread Barry Leiba
> Another consideration is that a non-standard, internal blocking would have > been > effective only for their users. Perhaps they though they were doing the rest > of the world a favor by following standard protocols. Had that MUST NOT been > in place then, /perhaps/ we'd have spared ourselves

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-10 Thread John Levine
It appears that Barry Leiba said: >> Is “generally” true here? I think I have seen exceptions to DKIM signatures >> being valid on relayed >> messages, although I can’t dig up any examples right now. > >You seem to be answering the question you're asking. I know of none >of these relays that br

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-10 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 08/Jul/2023 20:13:44 +0200 John Levine wrote: It appears that Richard Clayton said: They then moved on to just using random identities from the same domain as the recipient. This led a great many Yahoo users to believe that a great many other Yahoo users had been compromised, leading t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another p=reject text proposal

2023-07-10 Thread Barry Leiba
> I’m one of those people who prefer for “xxx considerations” sections to be a > descriptive discussion > of the xxx issues and not contain new normative requirements. I disagree, and certainly the Security Considerations sections are normative and often use BCP 14 key words. > the statement abo

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session agenda for IETF 117

2023-07-10 Thread Barry Leiba
List links added. Barry On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 2:15 PM Jim Fenton wrote: > > Barry, > > Can you add pointers to the various text options (perhaps links to the > mailing list archive) so we’re all working off the same text? And which is > the “current text”? > > -Jim > > On 6 Jul 2023, at 8:00,