From nobody Mon Oct 3 07:22:06 2016 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 CF96312B2E0 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:22:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=regumi.net 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 QIBhR-b7nKyz for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.climbers.jp (red01.climbers.jp [49.212.125.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AD412B2A9 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mail.climbers.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408B9CF652 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:21:58 +0900 (JST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=regumi.net; s=red0002; t=1475504518; bh=D2XBKIlac8c1mvB4KiFrLSag2Onae9bvJPHgTT8tK4o=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=SvAaNdUnlRU93ZMcHredgUu0aCxWBgffxfG6/4UKoiAf/9Z22HV9Ycg1yWFQtcNu1 5iLxuKurdNq6bzjA6bK9OcEIYJ9ctnzJdU1kxxGRPS/0kepX1JdMGFdlqxkoOFhuoo KbeMgQeCKD2LF+loUD0Ax9ye9BdTmPNC+tA53Bv/4Q2n1PQXgAskXimMI3DP1A3ZQR Xm1Fr0b6FtczNehL8dJvUa6fEP6pjxIW5ql2Ja2SSjMn8E9WGbfhBT6fPL9zUJ9CSF VFY6cKUFDj5TGQoCPryy7curOH5+Y9TZLhjsFk0pkDhW7lJ0eSjzowWhppCIdBGroO 2tgPlN7/C12qA== Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id e66so122062451iod.1 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 07:21:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmyT+IgN4JyuIQtTUn1GB6mef5idem0KEjgqNN+wN31z7sajJNPLbLSFS4K8pBme6kSNf0yNHBMJ0rLmQ== X-Received: by 10.107.145.10 with SMTP id t10mr20868084iod.42.1475504516776; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 07:21:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.223.101 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 07:21:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <233B51DD-C6BB-464F-8206-D3D0CDD032DE@lepidum.co.jp> References: <1091919919.43972.1458233931938.JavaMail.zimbra@peachymango.org> <233B51DD-C6BB-464F-8206-D3D0CDD032DE@lepidum.co.jp> From: Takehito Akagiri Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:21:55 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Kouji Okada Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c055ea49650ed053df6aa2e Archived-At: Cc: dmarc Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification-00.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 03 Oct 2016 14:22:05 -0000 --94eb2c055ea49650ed053df6aa2e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As Kouji mentioned on Sep 21st (JST), we updated our Internet-draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification-01 We have updated the draft based on comments on ML when we submitted draft 00. I'll show small comments about that. 1. Remove roadmap section. Our main proposal is using potential PASS. Many guys gave comments about =E2=80=9Creject=E2=80=9D. So we cut the section about roadmap so as to simp= lify our argument. 2. Add use case - Add Microsoft=E2=80=99s case mentioned by Terry. - Contribution to domain reputation based on authenticated one. 3. Name of the verification. We did not change the name of this method. If you have any ideas, please show them continuously such as DMARC Lite and BestGuessDMARC. Refer to discussion section. 4. Authentication-results status PASS, BestGuessPass or some others should be better. Refer to discussion section. 5. Where to document I think RFC is one of the better choices. In case that the status of =E2=80=9CDMARC Virtual Verification=E2=80=9D is PASS, =E2=80=9CDMARC=E2=80= =9D is always PASS if DMARC record exists. That is different from =E2=80=9CBest Guess SPF=E2=80=9D. 6. About the opinion that DAMRC is opt-in protocol What is the problem if receiver do =E2=80=9Cvirtual verification=E2=80=9D f= ollowing this draft? We cut roadmap section, so no risk for sender in case of =E2=80=9Cp= =3Dnone=E2=80=9D. Receiver can use PASS information to evaluate senders. This is the merit for receivers and no risk for senders. We will update this draft again before IETF 97 so any comments would greatly help. Best regards, =E2=80=95Takehito Akagiri --94eb2c055ea49650ed053df6aa2e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As Kouji mentioned on Sep 21st (JST), we updated our Internet-draft.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification-= 01

We have updated the draft based on comments on ML when we sub= mitted draft 00.=C2=A0 I'll show small comments about that.


= 1. Remove roadmap section.

Our main proposal is using potential PAS= S. Many guys gave comments about =E2=80=9Creject=E2=80=9D. So we cut the se= ction about roadmap so as to simplify our argument.


2. Add use c= ase

- Add Microsoft=E2=80=99s case mentioned by Terry.
- Contrib= ution to domain reputation based on authenticated one.


3. Name = of the verification.

We did not change the name of this method. If y= ou have any ideas, please show them continuously such as DMARC Lite and Bes= tGuessDMARC. Refer to discussion section.


4. Authentication-resu= lts status

PASS, BestGuessPass or some others should be better. Refe= r to discussion section.


5. Where to document

I think RFC= is one of the better choices.=C2=A0 In case that the status of =E2=80=9CDM= ARC Virtual Verification=E2=80=9D is PASS, =C2=A0=E2=80=9CDMARC=E2=80=9D is= always PASS if DMARC record exists. That is different from =E2=80=9CBest G= uess SPF=E2=80=9D.


6. About the opinion that DAMRC is opt-in pr= otocol

What is the problem if receiver do =E2=80=9Cvirtual verificat= ion=E2=80=9D following this draft? We cut roadmap section, so no risk for s= ender in case of =E2=80=9Cp=3Dnone=E2=80=9D.
Receiver can use PASS info= rmation to evaluate senders. This is the merit for receivers and no risk fo= r senders.



We will update this draft again before IETF= 97 so any comments would greatly help.



Best regards,
=E2= =80=95Takehito Akagiri <akagiri@re= gumi.net>

--94eb2c055ea49650ed053df6aa2e-- From nobody Wed Oct 5 07:35:08 2016 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 D4AE6129762 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 u-SWfqIYZMUq for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (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 8B711129763 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r192so189700602ita.0 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 07:35:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qGdVtw7A6G+NZaoGZwmSLlpK4QN0TB20pnrXsAQJQ84=; b=xE3JRv9VvdL6NuFsWKnr/RK4A7XJEwv2LsuBtQ1qsBxGXF5iBWihFwKsWRYVinwKsh xkoyfRfyViK5f9aH9Aoq/i7f346t398SGAu1AgSdFdatdfcUZk7+AsFuqID/UC/ZvGhV SV7W5VdMOAJEPMDahBO7jE+vZx1hVoyxq1Wmb585x6upDMZ+fKQCsv5/ARD67mPaH8Sp /JDiDQPZGTCsxjNxYHEyICEPO/4OJ9QupC3IT2Mjs6N9zpAmDEFpm0grAYTJQjHg0xDc 8PEtsLNsax4TgXrMipeJiYR1R1pew9LsAT22DyX8T71DxOZ3DkkN/4RkRM9XTI0AyMbK mSKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=qGdVtw7A6G+NZaoGZwmSLlpK4QN0TB20pnrXsAQJQ84=; b=N6XTRj5wygq3ej6+CQ07NsPENA8a2J1R8DQVj8aQUZF4axfVbzfG4/9DYoi4B935pO gxK1BBHz6JGes0I3fWokj7m4DDbbGkhyo5OGnfde/KZid02lRy13epbh2glG0VA5x4Bn uSWkryGMI/wxYy+jrIsM3uKIirgR2rm40HWqqbIW8mhPHyGESX6XRQAqh69RjSYl/JDX Eq7WJUTvC6XLzQLKXig8ckiW9Rw1metYJ7sa8BEtftkRzVC3U9wj4NULabMe6bGiXVSm 2GPUYoQPrYGrSiOE9csDFbBvZ6OTBRdHhyxW83it3T2BhYxbox1S9GcqT7Q5LJidgLKy z1gw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rno2quoSuk65ZWjpXP/Bhvnt4vLHK4hQZQ3aPB0uOPY5KhxFz5fckn5vi964oRFwhmCSmfaShUBtv0eYw== X-Received: by 10.107.9.141 with SMTP id 13mr9773018ioj.76.1475678105358; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.148.21 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Leiba Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:35:04 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kW0Ktzx08_xSaU6adjmW-RAofRY Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" , kurta@drkurt.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 05 Oct 2016 14:35:08 -0000 We haven't had much discussion of the ARC documents recently, so... Kurt, what's the status of the documents? Do you have an issues list? Do you have material for updated drafts? Is there discussion you want to start or follow up on? Working group: Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of discussion of them mean they're close to ready? Barry, DMARC WG chair From nobody Fri Oct 14 21:19:54 2016 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 88668129514 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:19:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.002 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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=hfOjvhRa; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=X9PcGuab 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 3Cd3n9-dyk5u for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.winserver.com (pop3.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B850129408 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:19:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1123; t=1476505183; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=rUisODCBuBDIFZMgBHxkKJ2U6zg=; b=hfOjvhRayisGQEnQNkbvvRjlur4YOP8Kif4xuhIbWgn8cTEG6WjbpAeYt7ss0y 9cilpLkVurYV/EMUrVyB3RGQkLy3ZC449DZYF0r/QgP9eQL0BTuwdBOhNB2+HRF/ paz9i+7bJk7bHbIA5xcgbtGj5p1rjgiwbQ1HPW+bVRkXo= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:19:43 -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; Received: from beta.winserver.com ([208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3288679998.1.4968; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:19:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1123; t=1476504612; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=HFcMrsC 7DaVgvYR01eKlV0me/ydqnBW5e4lwQMEKw3M=; b=X9PcGuabbZWCwEM3mEGy1bW CZxK9uyUpQ1yt7iqVeqlAHuaHqs/wfO/+GH1cfWa/NuqF//n10gVoDgYjw6RvErT OR+H4E6Srw1dXfMt+ZPcT8D7rGDWgLpZf2M3IlKW+tCvU+ih6hDWc+/C+UBPnJfn WKxJiAxRWCHx4RHNbHyI= Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.5) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:10:12 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.5) with ESMTP id 3316638847.9.464172; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:10:12 -0400 Message-ID: <5801AE59.2030104@isdg.net> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:19:37 -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: Barry Leiba , "dmarc@ietf.org" , kurta@drkurt.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 15 Oct 2016 04:19:52 -0000 I wasn't too excited about this ARC work. Appeared to too complex, overkill to implement, required too much code change, hence lack of interest. stop reading long ago. FWIW, I'm still waiting for a DMARC "proposal standard" work effort so we can get clean up the protocol, possibly get "Optional Policy Protocols" well described into it, with hopefully reintroducing some sponsored ADSP/ATPS or like plug and plug DNS policy work. ARC can also be added to the third party signer solutions list. -- HLS On 10/5/2016 10:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > We haven't had much discussion of the ARC documents recently, so... > > Kurt, what's the status of the documents? Do you have an issues list? > Do you have material for updated drafts? Is there discussion you > want to start or follow up on? > > Working group: > Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of > discussion of them mean they're close to ready? > > Barry, DMARC WG chair > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > From nobody Sat Oct 15 07:49:18 2016 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 6E8FE12958B for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 2v_egqXL1c8J for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 A9C941294F1 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w3so91032779ywg.1 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fTkgjRee5SYZGb5cxpFkFYp/fTG0Ut8fPOuNGrr3I8Q=; b=Wp43NGpClBcqwGXoT8qUfVnXoWTreHyVC6BsOqV+4WTywGsWi2+gOfGP31FP9uCJri +863Cfz32gZb2mKD6shS1iXbbdVXapiyywV82caaSOalrTZRBYDj7uqN0nXMXQQG+JzZ AbiXRX/XD3LnEwV0PAKiI8Je4aY2vR92M6eb5DtYlje9vEHMll6q1uJ/xNs9jAPdn0fh Q/VKFu1UKai4qjXQYQfsgMvMfKpDn+OEY+w+woQBuI00WZf5NtnpbwI3jBC2LQjCEKU3 WWc362DZMj6la2CKsERiJekiIujlhUHxIwPhdkOt7ElKHM2Vu3bVvCwnHuyOGTQZgKkZ jEmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fTkgjRee5SYZGb5cxpFkFYp/fTG0Ut8fPOuNGrr3I8Q=; b=Lrx/2Ud1HxMhMNFseLfaIqQgZqwOZ9PUnZlPYE8B7vPIUAOQ9CCquJ0JAHJXPdD9ro MdSwvm78902GMQFcZNwmiXIwPsPr3SrOgYozEP2VLNqYrUDeG1HCz3ieKQIPb5pHQKRA XtdN9xQ9zuofUjde8Y1ui6IbwK/7n7xT7lzmtOzUWJkJ6sszxirl7Om3EDa9WRZopWDL J7Dj/7J3FOdBvO2F0sYYa6omf1MoWThu41yCFrWZSiikLrmMcIsxal4YO/fH1KUpvqOP OknYce4Z7UR2nU1M6xI3wyDry7mU+lJkqLJcyLSDXsKyxomYuDRsgN/1pFO0pIRFOESM +V2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm0XsgPmo3kaRglakqOxlRaxclKVRBm8vtYbFnrgi/+akPnJmVT16YndQ778Jw4xp2f5JrkYPXDAIThqw== X-Received: by 10.13.192.65 with SMTP id b62mr15304879ywd.285.1476542954926; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.125.3 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:49:14 -0700 Message-ID: To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e6fda52f7ea053ee8724b Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 15 Oct 2016 14:49:17 -0000 --001a114e6fda52f7ea053ee8724b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Working group: > Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of > discussion of them mean they're close to ready? > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stuff. There's some final plumbing I need to connect before it will be releasable. I think the ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends up being less complex than it appears on paper. There's at least one issue about the document that needs addressing, which I believe has been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined. More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its organization, flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer of complexity. When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some energy toward development of the document with the authors if they're amenable. -MSK --001a114e6fda52f7ea053ee8724b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba <barryl= eiba@computer.org> wrote:
Working group:
Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents?=C2=A0 Does the dearth of
discussion of them mean they're close to ready?
I've been working on an open source implementation.=C2=A0 = It consists largely of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stu= ff.=C2=A0 There's some final plumbing I need to connect before it will = be releasable.=C2=A0 I think the ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily = from DKIM concepts, actually ends up being less complex than it appears on = paper.

There's at least one issue about the document = that needs addressing, which I believe has been raised already in some othe= r context: The prefixing of an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Re= sults field being described only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguou= sly defined.

More generally, I think the document needs q= uite a bit of polish.=C2=A0 The core material seems to be there but I'v= e got some qualms with its organization, flow, etc.=C2=A0 This may also be = contributing to a false veneer of complexity.=C2=A0 When I'm done the f= irst round of coding, I'll route some energy toward development of the = document with the authors if they're amenable.

-MSK
--001a114e6fda52f7ea053ee8724b-- From nobody Sat Oct 15 14:57:48 2016 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 91539129428 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 D9qkHzU4LSQR for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x22c.google.com (mail-qt0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22c]) (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 4224F1288B8 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q7so95574831qtq.1 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:45 -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:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QAAkT5dcPQt/i3ZhUq0DbihVySOvW486zR1W0agYcfg=; b=kSnsJ6BTHs9tFVQhAka4aPE9iMVOChPQSY/PXpQv4S8ICUVRRP1BQuXjLKr+14ISuE BXdgv397o2BJaSX2A3lCLyScmxSUFng5OU4Fovzd5T6ohUBlBJBvy/HRUpxyWSZ0QozR rWdP8P28VFTrF/84VKelUby3THoos1kLdqZkSdD9Az3fGgAU0Tkcb5XPdcuMb4FUu6vC PnuqA9K3Yj5kNuFtci5No+RbCvVzOm9Hm8DwOK6+7jE3Mie9IJDSshPRVjtFzkoOr9t1 ozP+mqRInqMQuaszICbaWiDoG0ySYtLRa+oQEVIPBe6RGok7CUZGwlojdAEN3Tro8LQx I5kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QAAkT5dcPQt/i3ZhUq0DbihVySOvW486zR1W0agYcfg=; b=WS/T9OGXdYSoUNuyUg5sAwYsBI+xixe9SHMevwIo+twZ6ICQkODV+jaTRvhbVSbC9F Ho1CBOvwWyTrKN0Q4Zkwmx3cptJDjttf5KeEoIpu2Q+6N7OAC5Q/P1rMijmr5xZKSzkC sQuAJ2tB8mp2TRBnLz+6pD8j0KeUvM/rsV83OsnYcd5u3qSYRJPmny1NbN+NPjzZfeMj 6zAzVJ9kFD1/Kd3sKtcd+ilMHkKWSveidxsWC23boh1jaJo3mqarkcez8yGQbR7m3Mj9 LQ9dNK/aqy5LqCzssR94pPDcidE+jez9BNICM1tgFaAwg0ojyfHqmRXyEL4UmsT4ZoOj TZLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlXX3Eei0kJHdoSaX95E684Sn1vf3yLdL+COz9E3RmDfAg+6yVUvLgnm9dt2fNjZkYj31U85AC/AVPSYQ== X-Received: by 10.200.57.58 with SMTP id s55mr19068700qtb.68.1476568664378; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.104.225 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:57:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Barry Leiba Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:57:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zlW7IDjFy1qP2e3EhAHsaA47dZo Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 15 Oct 2016 21:57:46 -0000 > More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The core > material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its organization, > flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer of complexity. > When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some energy toward > development of the document with the authors if they're amenable. The chairs would greatly appreciate that, Murray... please to, and we know that Kurt's a delight to work with. Barry From nobody Mon Oct 17 09:20:34 2016 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 5F4C31295EA for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com 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 uoo5ggOrQGWF for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 CD56612962F for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id m72so218226604oik.3 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H/Xc0MMThpE3RI/f6CBt0ddbfSUQO+5cfAm/+W5YqKE=; b=GnvOErwLiktlWuqmcYJ8JPVZWegwpGJrKAyYNa/tFS2reoF2WvJs/x3Wef82RvOepz PCwU/ldRsg4gMHuBXaSU2If3G38lDs6fCPg58/Sb7stiXnGrLSXfl5alDyJzwXhNAD3B AQvngssHJsz/TmHLGEi52yKmhNsvBUpW8DuYo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H/Xc0MMThpE3RI/f6CBt0ddbfSUQO+5cfAm/+W5YqKE=; b=IMv5/Ua38E+nsU4ii53eE5KdryEFxbJg4AIyZWx03BsSxz/aukHKUAqrvY9VW43e9V fXW/76VuYepYtbCcAt1wb5XqpQpSoW6BkXIG3wP00D2mBYCkXurAuMyglvxLzm+hJrRf SsSm09pYmR7hbB2Q7omqWjgpLN/kcd+HHBT6nxqqpOS4Lt2mfWrKL3VIZzswdpxicsOz trTJuWBYqz+2D+RtG+VOi28OyDuNRsHzLquZtKslaImXdCU0FNEYMq6n3D8XCeAGLgdS ofCdiL7bTuP2OfjApicC1Gw1w9Y+jtyFtEStoYJZy0HscXUn+WTqxdoazXJTQ1t7Wr4L txGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkE1P1t6vEd3GWJrHxjARBaDyDtasDX6lkKEnyZptp2baYRCxppkQZupKKYRnrhymZFx+6MDyJBinuOHA== X-Received: by 10.202.90.3 with SMTP id o3mr16624593oib.46.1476721214158; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.197.193 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Kurt Andersen Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:20:13 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5edc67132b053f11f35b Archived-At: Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Barry Leiba Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 17 Oct 2016 16:20:32 -0000 --001a113d5edc67132b053f11f35b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba > wrote: > >> Working group: >> Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of >> discussion of them mean they're close to ready? >> > > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely > of re-purposed code pulled from my open source DKIM stuff. There's some > final plumbing I need to connect before it will be releasable. I think the > ARC protocol, since it borrows so heavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends > up being less complex than it appears on paper. > Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for production. There's at least one issue about the document that needs addressing, which > I believe has been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of > an instance number to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described > only in prose leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined. > Yes, known issue. I plan to have an update that clarifies this issue and addresses a few nits submitted before the end of this week (Oct 21). > More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The > core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its > organization, flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer > of complexity. When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some > energy toward development of the document with the authors if they're > amenable. > Would be very happy to have any thoughts and input on making the document more understandable and approachable. --Kurt --001a113d5edc67132b053f11f35b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Oct 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba = <barryleiba= @computer.org> wrote:
Wo= rking group:
Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents?=C2=A0 Does the dearth of
discussion of them mean they're close to ready?
I've been working on an open source implementation.= =C2=A0 It consists largely of re-purposed code pulled from my open source D= KIM stuff.=C2=A0 There's some final plumbing I need to connect before i= t will be releasable.=C2=A0 I think the ARC protocol, since it borrows so h= eavily from DKIM concepts, actually ends up being less complex than it appe= ars on paper.

M= ost of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the f= our (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, OpenARC= ). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for production.= =C2=A0

=
There's at l= east one issue about the document that needs addressing, which I believe ha= s been raised already in some other context: The prefixing of an instance n= umber to the ARC-Authentication-Results field being described only in prose= leaves the proper syntax ambiguously defined.
<= /blockquote>

Yes, known issue. I plan to have an update = that clarifies this issue and addresses a few nits submitted before the end= of this week (Oct 21).
=C2=A0
More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish.=C2=A0 = The core material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its o= rganization, flow, etc.=C2=A0 This may also be contributing to a false vene= er of complexity.=C2=A0 When I'm done the first round of coding, I'= ll route some energy toward development of the document with the authors if= they're amenable.

Would be very happy to have any thoughts and in= put on making the document more understandable and approachable.

--Kurt
--001a113d5edc67132b053f11f35b-- From nobody Mon Oct 17 12:19:13 2016 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 032C1129863 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dz14W_gFqYz3 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:19:10 -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-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1E2129862 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19229 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2016 19:19:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Oct 2016 19:19:08 -0000 Date: 17 Oct 2016 19:18:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20161017191847.23124.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: kurta@drkurt.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 17 Oct 2016 19:19:12 -0000 >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for >production. Any chance we could get a peek at dkimpy or OpenARC? We understand that they're beta software. R's, John From nobody Mon Oct 17 12:26:42 2016 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 D8D281294DA for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:26:40 -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 autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com 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 OE9o9MqQN2kF for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D96C129472 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:26:39 -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 D58A0C4010E for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:26:36 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1476732396; bh=mtG2UqCq1PK7oV2tDzru0iX3tmL2jL4jxRiOzhNzFZs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ns01KNzaYApzm8RhhgJUTREF33Z3Ftvz4O96MMzCvBwF3DW/h9Y0HqhKOoSfwOpKB 5oVGY4AmIHX54mJhItKTnpUCiEvAkuPrh/bSROyu+i0NWi9eNUmtNSu+TinVc/mPXw +aKZmJEyJ7x+UVUq27VknCusHe5fwdJdgh4/2/Dk= From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:26:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3946675.kzkZK5sGX9@kitterma-e6430> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-95-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20161017191847.23124.qmail@ary.lan> References: <20161017191847.23124.qmail@ary.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 17 Oct 2016 19:26:41 -0000 On Monday, October 17, 2016 07:18:47 PM John Levine wrote: > >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the > >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, > >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for > >production. > > Any chance we could get a peek at dkimpy or OpenARC? We understand that > they're beta software. I have started working on incorporating the patch that Brandon Long (Google) provided for dkimpy. In order to incorporate it in a way that is maintainable and provides a stable API, it needs considerable rework (the actual ARC signing part seems to work fine). I would prefer to keep in private until I'm done with the rework so that what people see is close to or the final API. I don't think it'll take that long to do. Additionally, the exact patch that was provided will be in the VCS history, so people can look at that too if they want. Scott K From nobody Thu Oct 27 01:42:21 2016 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 0187E129C9E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 01:42:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.732 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.732 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sidn.nl 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 Dc4RLviOrEsO for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 01:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A9FC129997 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 01:42:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-language:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip:x-clientproxiedby; bh=d7AFN+hqbptxbzkPKKCHkguDWdZXDSi2jCNNMThENRA=; b=n1ixJqg6kCv87JI+sedruPbTrHid4RdLhlxAgO4/3w+34l4P2MELLcXJ5pnAsxJ1UPpeD5TknNjx6BTWdysJdNd7wvdgRHdjX1vCfn3RrKf53YO3JDkjnLNiltiZDfU9f5918dVI93i5lbf48+O3qlijWnJZUgVr8o8sM6tz9Eja3TP0TEb4+vP6GgahkUQIih5wqtQBNaEBlbeQxKUFXzata4qFHo0W/7J1+vqeo29kG9znROILH0UCe821QlsWWS+1EUqU6DATEhuHT689GPj8ZPD6WidO92Aa1OAVtXzDxUPTVEWvXv2lGL/GExkn18h8BZMzn1/026XmIM7dGA== Received: from ka-mbx03.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.179]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id u9R8gDMt022024-u9R8gDMv022024 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL) for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:42:13 +0200 Received: from dhcp-24-250.ripemtg.ripe.net (94.198.159.130) by ka-mbx03.SIDN.local (192.168.2.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:42:12 +0200 To: From: "Marco Davids (IETF IMAP)" Message-ID: <0a9c640f-cac3-4409-01c0-f95fc7905edc@sidn.nl> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:42:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/51.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [94.198.159.130] X-ClientProxiedBy: ka-hubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.172) To ka-mbx03.SIDN.local (192.168.2.179) X-FEAS-SPF: 2 / 2, ip=94.198.159.130, helo=, mailFrom=marco.davids@sidn.nl, headerFrom=marco.davids@sidn.nl Authentication-Results: arn2-kamx.sidn.nl; spf=pass (sidn.nl: domain of marco.davids@sidn.nl designates 94.198.159.130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=marco.davids@sidn.nl Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] New draft published: draft-davids-dmarc-fi-tag X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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, 27 Oct 2016 08:42:20 -0000 Dear list, A new Internet-draft has been uploaded: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davids-dmarc-fi-tag/ Abstract: This document extends the DMARC (RFC7489) record format by defining an additional tag. This new tag, the "fi" tag, is to be used in conjunction with the "ruf" tag. It enables a simple way of rate limiting the message-specific failure reporting on the request of a Domain Owner. The rationale behind this draft was an event where a large e-mail service continued to send many thousands of ruf-reports, literally overwhelming receiving mail servers. I believe the DMARC-standard could benefit from the small enhancement I propose in my draft and I am very much looking forward to your opinions and feedback. If the draft is received positivly, I am more than happy to take it a step further by improving it and put it up for adoption by the WG, or whatever else is deemed useful. Thank you. -- Marco