From prvs=8760dd4c3=fmartin@linkedin.com Thu Jun 20 14:22:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8247521E80C7 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.365 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vi4+FuUFEhh for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D58721F9FF0 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:22:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1371763337; x=1403299337; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=38jw/5BBaXfJG6ShZOvmc+hn9+O+hMIZJcYHPXFhxmo=; b=fBfkBqZuCK2M5HbKmQZR89cTKEr8iXjqw/Ylzgp8q8Q3EM22CDZMpibT WmA+grz3ID9Vb51vSXC/DLiUMin7vt1449hZKy1CDW0SnosOU7pZCOLpr +U58IXvNLzgCxHwU6xBATCjoRAzGF1QWaEDQDdq/PGIobGgx+VQjY6E43 E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,907,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="53438362" Received: from ESV4-HT02.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.236) by esv4-cas01.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:22:00 -0700 Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by ESV4-HT02.linkedin.biz ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:22:00 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: bounces on postfix... Thread-Index: AQHObfwzSfJRjUqiFkiXkT2z94EvfQ== Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532CA862@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <147030F3FAD0F947A580B2C2E2F6371B@linkedin.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Jun 2013 21:22:30 -0000 Well as people are having too much fun with DNS (clear your cache), I tried= to install postfix and opendkim and faced the usual bounce issue. So out of the box, postfix bounce templates have the following in the from:= field From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System) so as you suspect, this is not aligned, does not have a domain name etc.. w= hich seems to get opendkim not to sign the email. you need to create custom templates and put an email address there, somethi= ng like From: postmaster@example.com So it can be dkim signed on the way out. This link indicates the config for custom bounce templates: http://www.howt= oforge.com/configure-custom-postfix-bounce-messages But I could not find any site explaining the config to make sure postfix bo= unces are signed (and aligned). Still I'm not fully sure I have a correct c= onfig yet. Will post some more later... or any help appreciated.= From blevi.linux@gmail.com Thu Jun 20 23:51:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A350A21F9935 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nddABJRoAlNZ for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x231.google.com (mail-ea0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC9A21F9926 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f177.google.com with SMTP id j14so4394206eak.36 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=uWBrMq95gIITzYlq+9zrqAoO808Raa6x75XVN+Q4H4Q=; b=aSsrd7IMGP9vGnp+ASwXN4Ypxa+KddeMjfLVSgDdryuSVRwoChsiwIpXtPswlujyep bEgAWYqWtlkTuIuelCAH3JSuwYz7EhE/89Im/wIC1sYrzKQ2uMFGA3n3uz9RoCuBsxBP pUvWdSDo1YtrrboSfFQZv/NtWtiqQ6xbK61fSh4BVKxfKjD14x3DmJhI6gJs5uZy4kKc 7lNHa9tenK+HDo6joSZjcyHfR190Z1wIOdRw7tNz+J0OrjVnQYRkEEycxdfb9OgFxvzh cV620pA4zmojj2ur8cL+/Rcear66QmOhp97UMceYBLp1FE2fnnroXTen56t4fdbWtW1P t4Uw== X-Received: by 10.14.218.136 with SMTP id k8mr11104445eep.111.1371797462376; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([81.196.63.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm5468857eev.10.2013.06.20.23.51.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51C3F7D1.4080003@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:50:57 +0300 From: Birta Levente User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532CA862@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> In-Reply-To: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532CA862@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020207090205020109040609" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 21 Jun 2013 06:51:06 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms020207090205020109040609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 21/06/2013 00:22, Franck Martin wrote: > Well as people are having too much fun with DNS (clear your cache), I t= ried to install postfix and opendkim and faced the usual bounce issue. > > So out of the box, postfix bounce templates have the following in the f= rom: field > From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System) > so as you suspect, this is not aligned, does not have a domain name etc= =2E. which seems to get opendkim not to sign the email. > > you need to create custom templates and put an email address there, som= ething like > From: postmaster@example.com > So it can be dkim signed on the way out. > > This link indicates the config for custom bounce templates: http://www.= howtoforge.com/configure-custom-postfix-bounce-messages > > But I could not find any site explaining the config to make sure postfi= x bounces are signed (and aligned). Still I'm not fully sure I have a cor= rect config yet. Will post some more later... or any help appreciated. > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > The bounces does not go through milters and content_filters ... so=20 bounces never be signed. And, I think, bounces will never be considered message that aligned/not=20 aligned because is system message. Levi --------------ms020207090205020109040609 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMaTCC Bi0wggUVoAMCAQICAwW6STANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNV BAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRl IFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDEgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlh dGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEzMDExNjIyNTEzMVoXDTE0MDExNzE2NDM1MlowRjEeMBwGA1UE AwwVYmxldmkubGludXhAZ21haWwuY29tMSQwIgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhVibGV2aS5saW51eEBn bWFpbC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDdeaQrihrEjVzskObP Bt/lBPMweSXqP6kBCQkGDJ8FeUEg6BVwPFlt+IRixdBSmuemGc/ytkAuUmR1Okf/EjU5Vqt/ 1Gp6rSo0QdLweb/5Ov8a3+DdlqYHmWAAlokuDFDfh6qzHe+i2UTzDIdrf6B2vzz7sHFim0Qn Z3i0vuhbRuVD9FN16Z3b7BCqeEEJ6Ov5bbWJw6prBIwv53yvMJCkYM6Lsdb5a4RHhHJBYenv XZp6rLUjWutH8hdxj5d3MJh+2fLQJpAXWYX0Tg2nJvlGV64DhL2kgOkhgBY6ZF7OEQqEQCZR flSteI95IXVuyalJ6GkQkfQ26wfm2WcWrX8vAgMBAAGjggLbMIIC1zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsG A1UdDwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFK8H WJOzcN6f4b8Z3S3w+Iym9hCSMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFFNy7ZKc4NrLAVx8fpY1TvLUuFGCMCAG A1UdEQQZMBeBFWJsZXZpLmxpbnV4QGdtYWlsLmNvbTCCAUwGA1UdIASCAUMwggE/MIIBOwYL KwYBBAGBtTcBAgMwggEqMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9w b2xpY3kucGRmMIH3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCB6jAnFiBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1 dGhvcml0eTADAgEBGoG+VGhpcyBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSB3YXMgaXNzdWVkIGFjY29yZGluZyB0 byB0aGUgQ2xhc3MgMSBWYWxpZGF0aW9uIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRDb20g Q0EgcG9saWN5LCByZWxpYW5jZSBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcHVycG9zZSBpbiBj b21wbGlhbmNlIG9mIHRoZSByZWx5aW5nIHBhcnR5IG9ibGlnYXRpb25zLjA2BgNVHR8ELzAt MCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1MS1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEF BQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2Ns YXNzMS9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly9haWEuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2Nl cnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczEuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIEHDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0 YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggEBAEYLkDKVINvK2Gni2efREbDi1DgmrJJE /YPLW6jOaWsFD+BVCC7wVtWsLv8Ux5KBHXgBFyfjkxIKOoBy8+nXyarDwtdgXG+EMJwOSJ5V Lb7QOpt9T3sZPHghdV4ekwNjUbazlOGlT9pEzYwdngoA+0wXSX3MZyf1KIlXQIwGb6fcvdq0 tjWh1KvUx7wOto25V3tMokOytApgm2dJIBEucRpbeK5+QjgOTKEgqqYD81RNxB8tVBP4hdcB y9VfaVLac12hOZyOH575j8cNhDu5qTcALbyY37Fyndg0dYMYCLmneKCmqqICv/AhRk6jwTJd gV3X6nFYSMvYwxQtiAsl/CowggY0MIIEHKADAgECAgEeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMH0xCzAJ BgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGln aXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMSkwJwYDVQQDEyBTdGFydENvbSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0 aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw0wNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaFw0xNzEwMjQyMTAxNTVaMIGMMQswCQYD VQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0 YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmlt YXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEK AoIBAQDHCYPMzi3YGrEppC4Tq5a+ijKDjKaIQZZVR63UbxIP6uq/I0fhCu+cQhoUfE6ERKKn u8zPf1Jwuk0tsvVCk6U9b+0UjM0dLep3ZdE1gblK/1FwYT5Pipsu2yOMluLqwvsuz9/9f1+1 PKHG/FaR/wpbfuIqu54qzHDYeqiUfsYzoVflR80DAC7hmJ+SmZnNTWyUGHJbBpA8Q89lGxah NvuryGaC/o2/ceD2uYDX9U8Eg5DpIpGQdcbQeGarV04WgAUjjXX5r/2dabmtxWMZwhZna//j diSyrrSMTGKkDiXm6/3/4ebfeZuCYKzN2P8O2F/Xe2AC/Y7zeEsnR7FOp+uXAgMBAAGjggGt MIIBqTAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUU3Ltkpzg 2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUTgvvGqRAW6UXaYcwyjRoQ9BBrvIwZgYIKwYB BQUHAQEEWjBYMCcGCCsGAQUFBzABhhtodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2EwLQYI KwYBBQUHMAKGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNydDBbBgNVHR8EVDBS MCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zZnNjYS5jcmwwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDCBgAYDVR0gBHkwdzB1BgsrBgEEAYG1NwEC ATBmMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMDQG CCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUucGRmMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4ICAQAKgwh9eKssBly4Y4xerhy5I3dNoXHYfYa8PlVLL/qtXnkFgdtY 1o95CfegFJTwqBBmf8pyTUnFsukDFUI22zF5bVHzuJ+GxhnSqN2sD1qetbYwBYK2iyYA5Pg7 Er1A+hKMIzEzcduRkIMmCeUTyMyikfbUFvIBivtvkR8ZFAk22BZy+pJfAoedO61HTz4qSfQo CRcLN5A0t4DkuVhTMXIzuQ8CnykhExD6x4e6ebIbrjZLb7L+ocR0y4YjCl/Pd4MXU91y0vTi pgr/O75CDUHDRHCCKBVmz/Rzkc/b970MEeHt5LC3NiWTgBSvrLEuVzBKM586YoRD9Dy3OHQg WI270g+5MYA8GfgI/EPT5G7xPbCDz+zjdH89PeR3U4So4lSXur6H6vp+m9TQXPF3a0LwZrp8 MQ+Z77U1uL7TelWO5lApsbAonrqASfTpaprFVkL4nyGH+NHST2ZJPWIBk81i6Vw0ny0qZW2N iy/QvVNKbb43A43ny076khXO7cNbBIRdJ/6qQNq9Bqb5C0Q5nEsFcj75oxQRqlKf6TcvGbjx kJh8BYtv9ePsXklAxtm8J7GCUBthHSQgepbkOexhJ0wP8imUkyiPHQ0GvEnd83129fZjoEhd GwXV27ioRKbj/cIq7JRXun0NbeY+UdMYu9jGfIpDLtUUGSgsg2zMGs5R4jGCAoowggKGAgEB MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMi U2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20g Q2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwW6STAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIHLMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEzMDYyMTA2 NTA1N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFFTGm2wVgSu/eAemERzMgvc+yx1JMGwGCSqGSIb3DQEJ DzFfMF0wCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEqMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBAjAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0D AgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAwBwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQAEggEAleXosJu9mW6JOB55zS0dJa2eQ5ZY1wbNyrAfoFHg/Y0lFV2/fkRG96zHhXvc ACo6XLzY7E34PdSZUMqgxS68WCStcH806qjPHImCpuOYR9eb0BrSmzv2YMMbrUYgdH93AjpZ ttwk9VTr4Ym3fJuYWNcLS352GbSa4xr2x39aRXTi0KqKjyOCo9RwBAoGEq5taF09v3/CRuUm UR+SrMu4iECNnR5SFmneWmlyfinE58gLZl2xgctFFCKZdu9gpEb4BspbdOevJCIipLYx9Joj ESuQXBLgCHazRNmC41Gb2l004LOIaYFZfiwB00CD6ZnKP+0lGRQ2C+BznJsFO5BZ2QAAAAAA AA== --------------ms020207090205020109040609-- From prvs=8772192a6=fmartin@linkedin.com Fri Jun 21 06:43:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D576611E8186 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B8kvk5d0MTQJ for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4D611E817D for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1371822214; x=1403358214; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=1y+te1j4A1pMKwoXqstQ+3IIOWzxYzZ0MZefoANNFD0=; b=b0JQEVq+ZHtVFwIouQPqMIZVeZWGcRUE6mDKrS6YoKm1ixGQIpETu95z 0DAfVW0bkjX8FKFr5dWW5+EUKc5aIsmaZi9tDhUbTxJVmi1pMSZEV1FvC MqcB88hPcoGfx6drDMycEnnLN7VCQtANF3MWfN7EQeLceOpjVnmxk3r8U w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,913,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="53502700" Received: from esv4-exctest.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.60) by esv4-cas01.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.11; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:43:19 -0700 Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by esv4-exctest.linkedin.biz ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 06:43:19 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Birta Levente Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... Thread-Index: AQHObfwzSfJRjUqiFkiXkT2z94EvfZlAML2AgABzRAA= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532D3C50@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> References: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532CA862@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> <51C3F7D1.4080003@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51C3F7D1.4080003@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.253] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 21 Jun 2013 13:43:38 -0000 On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Birta Levente wrote: > On 21/06/2013 00:22, Franck Martin wrote: >> Well as people are having too much fun with DNS (clear your cache), I tr= ied to install postfix and opendkim and faced the usual bounce issue. >>=20 >> So out of the box, postfix bounce templates have the following in the fr= om: field >> From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System) >> so as you suspect, this is not aligned, does not have a domain name etc.= . which seems to get opendkim not to sign the email. >>=20 >> you need to create custom templates and put an email address there, some= thing like >> From: postmaster@example.com >> So it can be dkim signed on the way out. >>=20 >> This link indicates the config for custom bounce templates: http://www.h= owtoforge.com/configure-custom-postfix-bounce-messages >>=20 >> But I could not find any site explaining the config to make sure postfix= bounces are signed (and aligned). Still I'm not fully sure I have a correc= t config yet. Will post some more later... or any help appreciated. >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >>=20 >=20 > The bounces does not go through milters and content_filters ... so bounce= s never be signed. > And, I think, bounces will never be considered message that aligned/not a= ligned because is system message. >=20 looks like a design problem with postfix if you can't dkim sign all emails = it sends. I thought this was the intent of these two parameters smtpd_milters non_smtpd_milters With the last one to handle such "bounce" emails.= From prvs=8772192a6=fmartin@linkedin.com Fri Jun 21 08:17:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C2421F9E04 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNeJ5C+WoBxt for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACEC21F930C for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1371827840; x=1403363840; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xEnQyMGFUXWmcYI5OTz3rNWC9RfbUP+o+Jh3LZurrpA=; b=DcaAq7eEu2XMVqrFHxWgtpGzEFpp0+2V1UD/1M/sT9KGEt9Dpbm31zGg jAY18aEqDxNxKaz0UEseVjXvE0vr87RbuY80W2mxhGqbm2ED4KBnXQhTZ o00DO3Gu6svX4JSkFc5xCNzFb/QUyv3uewUFwD7WOVgRAbL8BB3kkSXld E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,913,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="51585641" Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:17:05 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Birta Levente Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... Thread-Index: AQHObfwzSfJRjUqiFkiXkT2z94EvfZlAML2AgABzRACAABoyAA== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:17:04 +0000 Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532D5097@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> References: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532CA862@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> <51C3F7D1.4080003@gmail.com> <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532D3C50@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> In-Reply-To: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE532D3C50@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.250] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1BEECF24E1AD7D429DBA487440CA5433@linkedin.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] bounces on postfix... X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 21 Jun 2013 15:17:24 -0000 On Jun 21, 2013, at 6:43 AM, Franck Martin wrote: >=20 > On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Birta Levente wrote= : >=20 >> On 21/06/2013 00:22, Franck Martin wrote: >>> Well as people are having too much fun with DNS (clear your cache), I t= ried to install postfix and opendkim and faced the usual bounce issue. >>>=20 >>> So out of the box, postfix bounce templates have the following in the f= rom: field >>> From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System) >>> so as you suspect, this is not aligned, does not have a domain name etc= .. which seems to get opendkim not to sign the email. >>>=20 >>> you need to create custom templates and put an email address there, som= ething like >>> From: postmaster@example.com >>> So it can be dkim signed on the way out. >>>=20 >>> This link indicates the config for custom bounce templates: http://www.= howtoforge.com/configure-custom-postfix-bounce-messages >>>=20 >>> But I could not find any site explaining the config to make sure postfi= x bounces are signed (and aligned). Still I'm not fully sure I have a corre= ct config yet. Will post some more later... or any help appreciated. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmarc mailing list >>> dmarc@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >>>=20 >>=20 >> The bounces does not go through milters and content_filters ... so bounc= es never be signed. >> And, I think, bounces will never be considered message that aligned/not = aligned because is system message. >>=20 >=20 >=20 > looks like a design problem with postfix if you can't dkim sign all email= s it sends. >=20 > I thought this was the intent of these two parameters > smtpd_milters > non_smtpd_milters >=20 > With the last one to handle such "bounce" emails. http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html "Postfix currently does not apply content filters to mail that is forwarded= or aliased internally, or to mail that is generated internally such as bou= nces or Postmaster notifications. This may be a problem when you want to ap= ply a signing Milter to such mail. " So with postfix, no DKIM signing for bounces... bugger! So it is important to have the SPF part of DKIM aligned, which means, putti= ng a SPF record on the hostname which is presented in the HELO/EHLO as well= as to do custom templates to ensure the From: contains an email address. From barryleiba@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 10:46:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D6721F9C3D for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSk8qLGs-Qq6 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22f.google.com (mail-qa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9259221F9C45 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id i13so762165qae.6 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wpbFyxf1g8mDKjeXEXH4HKL+rzkK5c66WxWzqfi7/nQ=; b=mvpkFE3Y/SetvwR1zaIHcktjul8jOnxj2oSi7hnuPSJJ+OGsQmc48aQirae8BJ5YAH s4ApYUQiw+pcnQJ7Ijmb+RGay9KlIFDT79a9EdmZy032YZOPfZ1pkcvf/2aLnyMeV8D3 YX2t6KlavTTOr5QMiHVcaQLsscBxYvxVYD3GFAOKsqUV4pn/NnugU4zvrrZbhnyIZ7ME R6flg9MAwHyofHYYs0cxOyeCWKut37/zTAlW/Lpjy/JbquKEhaxcpzDjMib+B7mXCnJH eKEqUtvGYyDIBoiWtfnoH16NP15I5H2OlQoQwcqTTgCK/JfD8aksUoqRNX8+Xt2DFzj4 ctDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.132.69 with SMTP id os5mr18863035qeb.48.1372441563727; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.0.139 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:46:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ef0TWy1OrnUMufzZ13fj7LOxtas Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:49:14 -0700 Cc: Russ Housley Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 28 Jun 2013 17:46:18 -0000 (BCC to apps-discuss) As some of you may have seen from the preliminary agenda, the App Area will have one BoF in Berlin: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC). See the BoF wiki for details: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki The BoF is currently scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, 30 July, from 15:20 to 16:50 Berlin time... though that could change as the IETF meeting agenda is finalized. Russ Housley (CC) has agreed to chair the BoF. Russ is experienced with what's needed to have a successful BoF, and will make sure we stay on the right track to answer the questions we need to answer in order to move forward with a working group, if that's the outcome of the BoF. He'll be working with the BoF proponents on the BoF agenda over the next weeks. Barry, Applications AD From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Jun 28 11:43:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2595B21F99B7 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2EzV-WrsEKXb for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0275E21F8584 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2556F2407E for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b8jtsXLOKQdW for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-156-29.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.156.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEAEF24078 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:43:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <377AA4D7-3202-42B9-B6D6-05510F08990D@vigilsec.com> References: To: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 28 Jun 2013 18:43:32 -0000 > As some of you may have seen from the preliminary agenda, the App Area > will have one BoF in Berlin: Domain-based Message Authentication, > Reporting & Conformance (DMARC). See the BoF wiki for details: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki >=20 > The BoF is currently scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, 30 July, from > 15:20 to 16:50 Berlin time... though that could change as the IETF > meeting agenda is finalized. >=20 > Russ Housley (CC) has agreed to chair the BoF. Russ is experienced > with what's needed to have a successful BoF, and will make sure we > stay on the right track to answer the questions we need to answer in > order to move forward with a working group, if that's the outcome of > the BoF. He'll be working with the BoF proponents on the BoF agenda > over the next weeks. >=20 > Barry, Applications AD Thanks Barry. I very much want the IETF to take on this work. Fo those = people that are new to this topic, by way of introduction, I was the = Security AD that sponsored the DKIM BOFs and WG. The agenda for IETF 87 is very full, and every session must be run = efficiently. I propose that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: -- Summary of DMARC -- Summary of open issues -- Charter review -- Hums Comments? Thoughts? Russ= From jtrentadams@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 13:21:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7566B21F9C42 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AhL7uMQDrZCB for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB19521F9C0E for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id a13so4921177iee.20 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kxPCLy0OfAfKreE97xd4Pu6bG51BZf3GTS2DS+Z8ti4=; b=PEvTXIpuhhs+tpZlGuFQJaT4vYFetrZgd4TfFSyVIsXsXb01seAePpRfj6FnzZ4223 XhirMnwM9tYOh228rUd5rPtqS7uOz8WVeFanyU2+Jn8EzdrEu2jy12PaAOL4aiPgwoML bdR3S/fX+9ZDasYC2GoDbsieVsw6R2SPYqtts4q3pmoeovqoRBIBV8nlfTkMWHw+uPKS uKkl+dD1FiLGJypJydckkQdGqtSu5LoDsGKDyF9SH0DUsir1hk+9ZOiyKL+drQgU+RNY sj9qwa0trHzvNsNeyeGlOdaI36Ba7HN4ATDcj0/lVfuLYCyRGuxBY+AecoXP2YutCP20 hEzg== X-Received: by 10.50.16.8 with SMTP id b8mr4854095igd.1.1372450862056; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jtrentadams-isoc.local (c-76-25-71-111.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [76.25.71.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm90196igl.9.2013.06.28.13.21.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51CDF02C.9050303@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:21:00 -0600 From: "J. Trent Adams" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <377AA4D7-3202-42B9-B6D6-05510F08990D@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <377AA4D7-3202-42B9-B6D6-05510F08990D@vigilsec.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 28 Jun 2013 20:21:05 -0000 On 6/28/13 12:43 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >> As some of you may have seen from the preliminary agenda, the App Area >> will have one BoF in Berlin: Domain-based Message Authentication, >> Reporting & Conformance (DMARC). See the BoF wiki for details: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki >> >> The BoF is currently scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, 30 July, from >> 15:20 to 16:50 Berlin time... though that could change as the IETF >> meeting agenda is finalized. >> >> Russ Housley (CC) has agreed to chair the BoF. Russ is experienced >> with what's needed to have a successful BoF, and will make sure we >> stay on the right track to answer the questions we need to answer in >> order to move forward with a working group, if that's the outcome of >> the BoF. He'll be working with the BoF proponents on the BoF agenda >> over the next weeks. >> >> Barry, Applications AD > Thanks Barry. I very much want the IETF to take on this work. Fo those people that are new to this topic, by way of introduction, I was the Security AD that sponsored the DKIM BOFs and WG. > > The agenda for IETF 87 is very full, and every session must be run efficiently. I propose that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: > -- Summary of DMARC > -- Summary of open issues > -- Charter review > -- Hums > > > Comments? Thoughts? Many thanks for your support and encouragement, we're looking forward to a productive bof in Berlin. In that light, I think that your suggested streamlining makes sense. The item for the "Using DMARC" draft is a reasonable item to consider setting aside for the proposed WG itself. - Trent > > Russ > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc -- J. Trent Adams Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/ LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams From johnl@iecc.com Fri Jun 28 14:16:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3358921F9CF8 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.866, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n68pRhiXHUoa for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBEF621F85D1 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2250 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2013 21:16:22 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2013 21:16:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51cdfd26.xn--9vv.k1306; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ttUY3n49ZRFiCdeB6x1xOXDZZDV15aSktw/qJsAEVKE=; b=FHlZVnZVfVmahAPR76dqBOp8yw72V0d0ljngziqWfOsKjL6muyBnI4cU1O5MDV2NMNPkrHhFJpbxOkBm0a/r1qRm8iES2hoIh9T8DhaKepheZyzPXy4AX9ObZmL1ehYLARTyUI+vJ9meo2v3zs0tsyh1f+IDGeHikbkqcKaZznyg/CvbrwgoeWUieZB4WqTOImit9XXTT2Dpa2CdVlMjgTVHRh6Vb4uJ/t1jibJH0Zb+gqwlR/t1V5w6ZcYhknpR DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51cdfd26.xn--9vv.k1306; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ttUY3n49ZRFiCdeB6x1xOXDZZDV15aSktw/qJsAEVKE=; b=HKGZeNBUnsEjl4AZIt/dCAUsMkx7mp3N6ryvki3SHFQ544+pWEQo4dSEfPhA20SvF//ZmaOKR98Cx4G7T+VAfFV0escYmOf7al0pAxwzdDWDNw5Yh3ImYR0fPZeayuxV3Qny1mskW0KwWETAp3IB+WbpSSO32EnZVQpWbXuJyy4ELMEJehanFohoSmyOjTSuWeif5VlOIjuOxPfdmTzCHKeOEZ/khoi0VqRuChFhq3GTpV7Pgd5KXS0NbLlJwhaM Date: 28 Jun 2013 21:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <377AA4D7-3202-42B9-B6D6-05510F08990D@vigilsec.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 28 Jun 2013 21:16:28 -0000 >that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: >-- Summary of DMARC >-- Summary of open issues >-- Charter review >-- Hums > >Comments? Thoughts? This version presumes that people attending the BOF need to read the drafts first, which seems utterly reasonable. For the charter, I think it's important for people to understand that DMARC is basically done with multiple working implementations including several at giant mail systems. (I've written one of the smaller ones.) So the WG can certainly clean up and clarify the text, and improve the discussion of where it's useful, but it's too late to make incompatible changes to the bits on the wire. We've also had people who want it to be the magic spam bullet, aka FUSSP, and demand horrible hacks to fix what they perceive as holes in the spec, e.g., the alleged mailing list problem. Those sorts of changes need to be totally off the table. Other than that, no prob. R's, John From dcrocker@gmail.com Fri Jun 28 14:35:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27D21F9A1C for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jdMJIDecCVUJ for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B365321F9A52 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fa11so2898826pad.19 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TYtSMkZx4dEDxjLrPCYm3sXjb6xzcdfTz25es5BBh/0=; b=nsI9/jp5AydKr0CMLbJUW5d0PJWYIae3gHoAu0gwVx7Mpx1z0y/Z3M3vNnyOy0UjA4 hrX9CL+EF1BOW7LOxnGXa5gvhPJihLJma9KFxLbgWvcU8IriEz/zlpvUchVP9oYMYA6/ +BSi5lDDHIgJk++GlOHJG9ffhkdsFX/81XCmvUyL8QcExLI1ULrbTYHNzxSz5XVz6Kx7 uw9huOhEc6tSoKqNgPqP1sk69xfXhllHJwbQ6t/1sFhQTS9NcRxagrHXygA90dT+zD7k YivimrQcM5ohbon+X82Dzc372o2aq9I6fn+o3wOH6QG3ZnqY9JAEm0NILr6M3Eu9eyc8 IKew== X-Received: by 10.68.114.36 with SMTP id jd4mr13423904pbb.12.1372455329382; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.116] (cpe-76-93-128-131.san.res.rr.com. [76.93.128.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v20sm10685368paj.4.2013.06.28.14.35.27 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:35:17 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 28 Jun 2013 21:35:32 -0000 On 6/28/2013 2:16 PM, John Levine wrote: >> that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: >> -- Summary of DMARC >> -- Summary of open issues >> -- Charter review >> -- Hums >> >> Comments? Thoughts? > This version presumes that people attending the BOF need to read the > drafts first, which seems utterly reasonable. > > For the charter, I think it's important for people to understand that > DMARC is basically done with multiple working implementations > including several at giant mail systems. (I've written one of the > smaller ones.) So the WG can certainly clean up and clarify the text, > and improve the discussion of where it's useful, but it's too late > to make incompatible changes to the bits on the wire. This presumes that the DMARC base specification is part of the working group effort. There's been enough back and forth on this point that it's probably worth clarifying it for this list. To counter the suggestion not to discuss the current "Using" draft: Normally a BOF will provide some commentary about documents intended as input to the proposed working group. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From housley@vigilsec.com Sun Jun 30 08:47:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E554021F992A for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tz-3W8Qn1x6W for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0076D21F965B for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDA4A8AB5; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c9a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1TW35n0dzAu; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-156-29.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.156.29]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC73DA8AB4; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:47:58 -0000 Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD sponsored. = Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC = specification. Russ On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/28/2013 2:16 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: >>> -- Summary of DMARC >>> -- Summary of open issues >>> -- Charter review >>> -- Hums >>>=20 >>> Comments? Thoughts? >=20 >=20 >> This version presumes that people attending the BOF need to read the >> drafts first, which seems utterly reasonable. >>=20 >> For the charter, I think it's important for people to understand that >> DMARC is basically done with multiple working implementations >> including several at giant mail systems. (I've written one of the >> smaller ones.) So the WG can certainly clean up and clarify the = text, >> and improve the discussion of where it's useful, but it's too late >> to make incompatible changes to the bits on the wire. >=20 > This presumes that the DMARC base specification is part of the working = group effort. There's been enough back and forth on this point that = it's probably worth clarifying it for this list. >=20 > To counter the suggestion not to discuss the current "Using" draft: = Normally a BOF will provide some commentary about documents intended as = input to the proposed working group. >=20 >=20 > d/ >=20 > --=20 > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From sklist@kitterman.com Sun Jun 30 08:59:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E3521F9A1F for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQ4gzGt96-lO for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547F921F9A1A for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731A120E40D7; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:59:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1372607945; bh=2goa0SNqYkCfcL+C3KcAP7LHH3KuCQInFRMAEBRZLjw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IapK/YbIgyt0MnLBKYvBZulAAR6PeDF/XwZi1p+gsvbvJ77SS1leKf7dfncv+SSX6 Rr+jsQsyeFNiN3b2KL4VOu7SOeOZ7PUx54BPD7MzzlR21BkxpxCBUdlH7TmylmgZev PVzTOgA2NBdkZx/rBZZ8GZ1PaSmFdP//3sp/8wTA= Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.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 mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53D3120E4081; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:59:04 -0400 Message-ID: <1453736.2es1zahXvQ@scott-latitude-e6320> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Linux/3.8.0-25-generic; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:59:10 -0000 Then why have a BoF at all? It seems rather premature to discuss work beyond the base specification before we know what will be in the base specification. Scott K On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:47:50 AM Russ Housley wrote: > Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD sponsored. > Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC > specification. > > Russ > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 6/28/2013 2:16 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>> that we modify the proposed agenda as follows: > >>> -- Summary of DMARC > >>> -- Summary of open issues > >>> -- Charter review > >>> -- Hums > >>> > >>> Comments? Thoughts? > >> > >> This version presumes that people attending the BOF need to read the > >> drafts first, which seems utterly reasonable. > >> > >> For the charter, I think it's important for people to understand that > >> DMARC is basically done with multiple working implementations > >> including several at giant mail systems. (I've written one of the > >> smaller ones.) So the WG can certainly clean up and clarify the text, > >> and improve the discussion of where it's useful, but it's too late > >> to make incompatible changes to the bits on the wire. > > > > This presumes that the DMARC base specification is part of the working > > group effort. There's been enough back and forth on this point that it's > > probably worth clarifying it for this list. > > > > To counter the suggestion not to discuss the current "Using" draft: > > Normally a BOF will provide some commentary about documents intended as > > input to the proposed working group. > > > > > > d/ > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sun Jun 30 11:47:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7857721F9BEF for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.918 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NW3OO9Oy+lB4 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x22f.google.com (mail-vc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13C421F9BDC for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hr11so1530128vcb.20 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=w6m64GfzoRZEbkG6ESwIoh4TK9LUcEoz8COn/PCJlB0=; b=wlqRw/6YqqxhiCRlYXiZVI0Jk9Byll+lujD3MKRSMQiD5v2PnNK12yRPlkJ/cQSBUs obUKBIGaWgcEtSLrACFGetKICd6tXxKsv//SBCrBcnKLQ2rUfxOFaUlMxzZ3Ta8cJ6Ta 3gcVIzEnJPxbOFMP7GF+SzMI0TsXjydyTnp9fxFvhWPZ9hgqdHL6Xbcro0Xo4fWE6Q6K Zie1QaA+sQ9hPZtWbW2QrA7Me+LaipXsyF01XFBjiQTf98GHMjJ/imIaH63UJbTX/0HA lt0vzL7wvKTW22MPCcGyHgNm0f+ba5rXvk51FwzrKN4uMD8oTuEJhT4Gmv6BMB1Qi98P VRdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.91.202 with SMTP id cg10mr7086855vdb.85.1372618046199; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.137.227 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1453736.2es1zahXvQ@scott-latitude-e6320> References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> <1453736.2es1zahXvQ@scott-latitude-e6320> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:47:26 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eCO0uum5RwJqqVSAPCYQcKTO5rQ Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Scott Kitterman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015cf70e622704e0638bb2 Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:47:27 -0000 --bcaec5015cf70e622704e0638bb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Then why have a BoF at all? It seems rather premature to discuss work > beyond > the base specification before we know what will be in the base > specification. > > Scott K First, the DMARC spec is sufficiently well baked and mature that it should provide a solid enough basis for discussion. It's not likely that changes to it would be so drastic as to invalidate the BoF results. Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec AD sponsored, but the BoF could provide input to that plan. We expect to hear what the community thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as well as to get a sense of who will work on it, who will implement it, and that sort of thing. Barry > Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD sponsored. > > Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC > > specification. > > > > Russ --bcaec5015cf70e622704e0638bb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Then why have a BoF at all? =A0It seems rath= er premature to discuss work beyond
the base specification before we know what will be in the base specificatio= n.

Scott K

First, the DMARC spec is sufficient= ly well baked and mature that it should provide a solid enough basis for di= scussion. =A0It's not likely that changes to it would be so drastic as = to invalidate the BoF results.

Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec A= D sponsored, but the BoF could provide input to that plan. =A0We expect to = hear what the community thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as we= ll as to get a sense of who will work on it, who will implement it, and tha= t sort of thing.

Barry


<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> > Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD sponsored.=
> Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC
> specification.
>
> Russ --bcaec5015cf70e622704e0638bb2-- From prvs=8862bb6e8=fmartin@linkedin.com Sun Jun 30 12:14:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1496521F963F for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:14:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uc22lkXa4gc5 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F9921F949F for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1372619650; x=1404155650; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=A7+266SPeuPEXh6c3VJiSQ529U7B1l9ZK0xUquC7wQs=; b=08byvvJB4C8zayKPpsjfJbgqO2lMVRCqbN3qpJlNmdjldEHCwH9iKvD8 zXUViFdgO6zO2p1M06kNhv/NTdx4XhC1d9JK/XngnJHNUchwN+RCNmqpI 30mdD144EOSpG04xsFvbb1xRwhMdAi4ojbcnhzXOelWCEsLghghAGdWNB Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,969,1363158000"; d="scan'208,217";a="52653801" Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:13:48 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOdCfI9b5jenK0uUGXlrIwu64RYJlL68eAgAAqogCAAAVjgIACw5YAgAADJACAAC8KAIAAB2uA Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:13:47 +0000 Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com> <1453736.2es1zahXvQ@scott-latitude-e6320> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.250] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898ESV4MBX01linked_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Scott Kitterman Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:14:14 -0000 --_000_77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898ESV4MBX01linked_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Barry Leiba > wrote: Then why have a BoF at all? It seems rather premature to discuss work beyo= nd the base specification before we know what will be in the base specificatio= n. Scott K First, the DMARC spec is sufficiently well baked and mature that it should = provide a solid enough basis for discussion. It's not likely that changes = to it would be so drastic as to invalidate the BoF results. Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec AD sponsored, but the= BoF could provide input to that plan. We expect to hear what the communit= y thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as well as to get a sense o= f who will work on it, who will implement it, and that sort of thing. You can find the spec here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmar= c-base-00 and it has not much changed (in terms of functionality) since the= first release, one year ago: http://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt It has been 3 months since the spec has been released as an IETF document, = where people had the opportunity to comment and as Barry said no drastic ch= anges required have surfaced, and prior to that for more than a year the DM= ARC group has been taking input from the whole industry. so I'm not expecti= ng any surprise, tho it may happen. --_000_77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898ESV4MBX01linked_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

Then why have a BoF at all?  It seems rather premature to discuss work= beyond
the base specification before we know what will be in the base specificatio= n.

Scott K

First, the DMARC spec is sufficiently well baked and mature that it sh= ould provide a solid enough basis for discussion.  It's not likely tha= t changes to it would be so drastic as to invalidate the BoF results.

Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec AD sponsored, bu= t the BoF could provide input to that plan.  We expect to hear what th= e community thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as well as to get= a sense of who will work on it, who will implement it, and that sort of thing.


You can find the spec here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc= -base-00 and it has not much changed (in terms of functionality) since = the first release, one year ago: http://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt

It has been 3 months since the spec has been released as an IETF docum= ent, where people had the opportunity to comment and as Barry said no drast= ic changes required have surfaced, and prior to that for more than a year t= he DMARC group has been taking input from the whole industry. so I'm not expecting any surprise, tho it may hap= pen.
--_000_77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898ESV4MBX01linked_-- From sklist@kitterman.com Sun Jun 30 12:42:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F4421F9C0D for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:42:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHOOHVMoI486 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF6921F9C07 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C902D20E40D7; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:42:35 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1372621355; bh=Zxvk+u48BdJKW1FELXnuCWEbpGMuRXQ7CJP1kisQwMQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=F6xaXPXNL2OrTSzmq4VF4tD7CP63udLjhS37+1K/IoGkH6VBGcamS4a9uA16JQS2o gGWatgCig3zdgmzVHp6vRUO83kmdZ9EmH4lACyMkXrvbSvN+5Cbg340PoHqNR5tJii RvkrhLMp8U07bBWCnjHSQhSPs/DlqTjA/AYOw2+c= Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.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 mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F92120E4081; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:42:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:42:31 -0400 Message-ID: <11253780.gF1AY6Nnmb@scott-latitude-e6320> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Linux/3.8.0-25-generic; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE53383898@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:42:50 -0000 On Sunday, June 30, 2013 07:13:47 PM Franck Martin wrote: > On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Barry Leiba > > wrote: > > Then why have a BoF at all? It seems rather premature to discuss work > beyond the base specification before we know what will be in the base > specification. > > Scott K > > First, the DMARC spec is sufficiently well baked and mature that it should > provide a solid enough basis for discussion. It's not likely that changes > to it would be so drastic as to invalidate the BoF results. > > Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec AD sponsored, but the > BoF could provide input to that plan. We expect to hear what the community > thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as well as to get a sense of > who will work on it, who will implement it, and that sort of thing. > > > You can find the spec here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 and it has not > much changed (in terms of functionality) since the first release, one year > ago: http://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt > > It has been 3 months since the spec has been released as an IETF document, > where people had the opportunity to comment and as Barry said no drastic > changes required have surfaced, and prior to that for more than a year the > DMARC group has been taking input from the whole industry. so I'm not > expecting any surprise, tho it may happen. So far, comments have been made and I've no idea what, if anything is being done with them. I've got my one pet rock issue and I think that the level of writing is not up to par for an IETF standard. Here's Russ' mail I was replying to: On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:47:50 AM Russ Housley wrote: > Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD > sponsored. Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC > specification. This says the base spec is out of scope for the BoF. Thus my objection. I understand people that have already implemented DMARC are (reasonably) cautious about engaging with the IETF in a way that could cause it to change incompatibly. OTOH, I think it's also reasonable for a new protocol that directly affects existing IETF protocols to have significant scrutiny. Scott K From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 30 13:04:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16C421F99D9 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jetNL8GCfBB9 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F05721F99BB for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 84468 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2013 20:04:37 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2013 20:04:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d08f55.xn--9vv.k1306; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=2NGK11GhiaZI2JcPgwlmXE8ykGwRAR71I58BoGF5a1Q=; b=YDNHmlmy1dsDnFPhfaKCuyl1aloSS2PbZkU8/hxIxpFVbohH+EQLR9uJuWmGPlqfnEng4OkO2TyDxrhjfNOESt10koS/js3ZRkH47C9X0B4dN6XkSdi/GwrGYZy0O31UlbhxOj+oCSA1iqenUgW/LpVkGIz8DFirPDr/sasxNJUvUQMCLGWFNfCqmL+hROI0ppl3Lun68AHVGq48khNEBRj1aersLEfRCh5eXBoTd7o5J65xjhYdRICSkuNe7ZRZ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d08f55.xn--9vv.k1306; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=2NGK11GhiaZI2JcPgwlmXE8ykGwRAR71I58BoGF5a1Q=; b=fybD1ZAvQXWQNWkOwB9CtdJVkagnXrpjWReN9XmaRPeYr9ILN5D+oIyMmeC47+scizq1Y9irFUNMM9oeL7Ctf7KIfvKh+jplL2APqMcl3smxhE5MaXthtPJlsSKO6/aD49B+BgB0x8kQqV9ncQTL+MOx4hjy9MqezYeqFm4fBVDp7RaK5wMa6d6GDnaGokFUfv/Q+1DVPwdY1GT7l4kZvE4VF6asWL1rUBmGIlWRIqMiabYWTf5OuZxrGzW4s508 Date: 30 Jun 2013 20:04:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <11253780.gF1AY6Nnmb@scott-latitude-e6320> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: sklist@kitterman.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:04:43 -0000 >This says the base spec is out of scope for the BoF. Thus my objection. I >understand people that have already implemented DMARC are (reasonably) >cautious about engaging with the IETF in a way that could cause it to change >incompatibly. OTOH, I think it's also reasonable for a new protocol that >directly affects existing IETF protocols to have significant scrutiny. I'm with Scott. While I agree that it would be bad to make incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself could be improved. R's, John From dcrocker@gmail.com Sun Jun 30 13:08:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FEB21F8F4F for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LOO4pgMszVJg for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C97921F84DC for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kq13so4216839pab.25 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q69WUEk+kPSBqxa4Po1Uyqquga4K3nzLI/KNJYjL8LQ=; b=CrXy1TWzfPWJVrk2akVpTNIdSXUwgsyvGWfMozVXAnHFTu10l7LKofXwowQJKduUND aRqZh02TOf9VTmc24UvR5f0tJvQBXrmXQCS4O+EGJfsgpKdg0xncY/tk1lVA9i/IdnEa NZ/LuIEXizS9fRRp3ErGEeEr0NJYmerroGmAJQT1S4fM5TsCPKSOsn1u1Me2Hca33So8 w6nEITlaxfJTX9JDmLXwUbuhugb34Sak5mKjG2MZg/oKoE2h6XK/jo0OXqO2tQLERpMI Fzu2MSsdCcHtfnv79oStMtkATrWbXvgoF4c3SxU3XIGS7rjo1sr/JZ3J+HhF/hxmAKR/ LlgQ== X-Received: by 10.68.218.100 with SMTP id pf4mr20782193pbc.72.1372622892136; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.5.198] (ip-64-134-225-35.public.wayport.net. [64.134.225.35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sb3sm19988273pac.14.2013.06.30.13.08.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:07:58 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:08:24 -0000 On 6/30/2013 1:04 PM, John Levine wrote: > I'm with Scott. While I agree that it would be bad to make > incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself > could be improved. Indeed, purely editorial, non-technical work rarely (if ever) warrants a working group. And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that are prompted a document revision that will be issued within days. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From sklist@kitterman.com Sun Jun 30 13:30:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D81B21F9C0E for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ClZ4Aq2Agwi for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994CC21F9B15 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B6F20E40D7; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 16:30:52 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1372624252; bh=3xdJBTvNGkEnxjQO33duwwFu9im6CiX/8kfw1yN9n/c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IA8LXPK4OZSeda59QTxChD3Qat++OLHLpp5V41VeLeIlDvldK5qr3TGT/ZQHwraj+ MBsTbyYcGxoI38cBPKZmVtEP9Qbct26usd12Himd4WSOJ+S+g6MzpZQA/4YpsF4Yra NPFXjPUh9favg4ODyhHwsn5aDj6bpSRRO1AYZTJs= Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.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 mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6211420E4081; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 16:30:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 16:30:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1464579.xSTkz0YGGa@scott-latitude-e6320> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Linux/3.8.0-25-generic; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> References: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:30:59 -0000 On Sunday, June 30, 2013 01:07:58 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/30/2013 1:04 PM, John Levine wrote: > > I'm with Scott. While I agree that it would be bad to make > > incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself > > could be improved. > > Indeed, purely editorial, non-technical work rarely (if ever) warrants a > working group. > > And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that are > prompted a document revision that will be issued within days. So then we're discussing about a BoF that may or may not include discussion of a document that we haven't actually seen yet because it's being developed in private. 1. Definitely premature to be discussing it. 2. I don't think the IETF should be in the rubber stamp business. Scott K From prvs=8862bb6e8=fmartin@linkedin.com Sun Jun 30 14:09:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8474521F9C8E for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ANt7C+-YJnF for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9F21F9C61 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1372626563; x=1404162563; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=TLEbdpDWHtvi+C5h3kpNH8QfeM3WP63AAH3TQROWCEk=; b=VdA9d8/JvuU40qKdyxVHfyvhpLPd+x3cFNwnigjV5gkIDhxpXcktkkeC cq4E6HCAX/X+Skc/VuUPw4pV+dFLRrEXTMLVF2v60nuF0azHRniKoRRyR 9MoBcGB2F+Mpmzl/yY8tv5tZJdXDlyAfEreFtYBx1YVbU0nkTfBxQW0ae E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,969,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="52656818" Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:07 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Scott Kitterman Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin Thread-Index: AQHOdCfI9b5jenK0uUGXlrIwu64RYJlL68eAgAAqogCAAAVjgIACw5YAgAADJACAAC8KAIAAB2uAgAAH+YCAAAYRAIAAAQsAgAAGZYCAAAq/gA== Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:09:06 +0000 Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE5338483A@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz> References: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> <1464579.xSTkz0YGGa@scott-latitude-e6320> In-Reply-To: <1464579.xSTkz0YGGa@scott-latitude-e6320> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.250] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2BB2A0A36AF8964FB313AFC2DA699904@linkedin.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:09:27 -0000 On Jun 30, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Sunday, June 30, 2013 01:07:58 PM Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 6/30/2013 1:04 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> I'm with Scott. While I agree that it would be bad to make >>> incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself >>> could be improved. >>=20 >> Indeed, purely editorial, non-technical work rarely (if ever) warrants a >> working group. >>=20 >> And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that are >> prompted a document revision that will be issued within days. >=20 > So then we're discussing about a BoF that may or may not include discussi= on of=20 > a document that we haven't actually seen yet because it's being developed= in=20 > private. =20 >=20 > 1. Definitely premature to be discussing it. >=20 > 2. I don't think the IETF should be in the rubber stamp business. >=20 It should not and it is not. Submit you review like Eliot did: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg00292.html I agree with Eliot's review and as Dave pointed, this is all editorial. And the BoF will indicate if the AD sponsored path is the best path, or if = there is substantial work to be done on the protocol. Is it? What work is n= eeded? From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jun 30 15:15:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60B321F9CA2 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XeevsVn7Ch3v for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E30321F9C6B for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1360 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2013 22:15:06 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2013 22:15:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d0adea.xn--btvx9d.k1306; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=Wj4dPhFzjQPMw2qEBMmzGNfVUpi070KD7jkfYxvmpik=; b=uKOMBaFbfHeBDHgYWV8zTPWcMGLw3+MFTRN2ZY6TUAuHArgva6C49RxYXnO1CLIhJVCdqGnmoIfYHgQlBeEFls9WlkbB9V5KuG14O05VK56Lbay7P3FBzmlhx9BL0vCkpJVRx8nLSVIxKuEAUuoxfVjL3A2cMBbuG2NtArPcaF32PP1WJflLxJZC7FoBKva8akBUxf3IfL+ryc5F55KtBaZSI+CTA/wis2NAVdRdGAL6qC7iJmoIlR7U0erjaRNy DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d0adea.xn--btvx9d.k1306; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=Wj4dPhFzjQPMw2qEBMmzGNfVUpi070KD7jkfYxvmpik=; b=dmcpqDuX1r4JYAKrQez2/02BQKMh9MEzj3gKAq/t4kF3B5fDJ/mzbN8E5JZtNvPgJQd3J0J3pLc53M9csGccKkYyPpZxwY6zmkY6roQRI12YUIwwK2sWQMUQ+7S0EgGdJa7PiyVl0e/hZtkXXGQ3yrKVBMYW07gi2+dKSYDpYTjK72z1SxAtaZVkPGrn4NtngsjVoFip0lDArNgZJAtImoaC1qjv2+6ieVAS6/60oumgDx4Cm3eTeiVWvt8zmDS8 Date: 30 Jun 2013 22:14:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20130630221443.71098.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: dcrocker@gmail.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:15:11 -0000 > And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that > are prompted a document revision that will be issued within days. While I don't doubt that the next version will be better, I think that the dmarc.org group needs to make up its mind and either get a reasonably chartered IETF WG that says no gratuitous changes to the bits, contribute all of the drafts to the WG, and take its chances. or else contribute none of them and just send them in via the independent stream. I understand why you might want to tell the IETF that it can only change the minor documents, not the major one, but I don't see why the IETF would be interested. R's, John