From nobody Wed Mar 7 00:21:33 2018 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 D55A7126C89 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:21:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lepidum-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.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 FWXaR30n24Bi for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 F0D02124C27 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id c18so1035738oiy.9 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:21:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lepidum-co-jp.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=73yYecWkFkui50/WvbXHf1r8M1DF28HAylgfeks+mvQ=; b=x+Bs76APM1VOZlnOwlsuYjSGljfRVDfFWjnshS6Rzx9rH/xjb8uVXqgPNs2cj1D2DC NwFr5kZN26xzfWEDtTpeRb0+Vb/iW8M542DFLw95Orx7gBZ/Hqz63Q+ngsTEimMAfY3b 9pYhdtrrm4afbRyz3K6nwnFEe9Rlzw6ojRsyOsgZAI4mVgricyNFmU98OMwffkZ+x72/ 759HJNfqLudbXaSqC986piiRjRlgf37Fp9EmFRK+/ypIrMvwMpvUnl6AhikarU3rLF1+ kSQw5naBuikK82BrJi/sQye988R6TW0PwjX9CTjJnRyvUmXDmGgt4QDkdRLQrF27dEeV frgQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=73yYecWkFkui50/WvbXHf1r8M1DF28HAylgfeks+mvQ=; b=jKB6DzWecEYdXmzXA024uJgPy3TEUz52aq47zw+kZqK1xMXBRYnVWc+4GBdNFtsTY1 sFxPrdketCvDc/Km+C26ae/4JDBlaE5cJq2Jdf1sDsaMTO2j/pUsf71uR/R20NoBi3Ao yVvooY2oFheC1CCqdfxHJZmxpC6E6Xc/1CxGroWnnSdYtw/HSUFPIe2fWtX7EggeGdf4 FQLXz69c3KC+G8ECSLcaS59rW17qJAuaAsnvqa4xBPoHX/1gO3+Bc/ofyMQnceuiIVvt w5zAqeYZFZa2qtpc1DYYlTdJMl9pnmKguMaMTKmefo9Qnkgrv+7nZvTJkL4kEFEqq8/6 nJeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBmn5fAGT0qA2tG0oizQnzA6kueH4M3RffqSTARckvckU6UnwBJ 5selYHXD3ZS0mPfT1ATOznVpJIPNoz6NFz1PhjNMabROno4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvRMxFLsxao/TIKCXvw7QBGCVXWjGcwQmbQCleVXTJ53fol7wkm6HDaTYNomzwQvdVeT3CulBLwVTMIv7Hi7C4= X-Received: by 10.202.71.16 with SMTP id u16mr14244662oia.258.1520410888842; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:21:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.85.151 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:21:08 -0800 (PST) From: Satoru Kanno Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:21:08 +0900 Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Cc: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" , Takehito Akagiri Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 07 Mar 2018 08:21:32 -0000 Dear DMARC WG Chairs, I'm sending to you on behalf of Genki Yasutaka-san. As I asked you last November, we are preparing for the next track, with the intention of not only reviewing this draft, but also implementing for verification of vDMARC. If possible, I'd like to discuss this at IETF 101. [Details] ---------------------- - What I want to talk? Draft Overview and Implementation of vDMARC - Time required 10 minutes (*even for 5 minutes, if your schedule is too busy to adjust.) - Internet Draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification/ ---------------------- Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Regards, Satoru -- Satoru Kanno Lepidum Co. Ltd. E-Mail: kanno@lepidum.co.jp From nobody Wed Mar 7 07:56:15 2018 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 6CD421270AB for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:56:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 GYBKCh8mwd0n for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (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 93AA3129C56 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s198so3209786qke.5 for ; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=GL7FXOvARcbDvRQNiFau3sZcWw5m5zxIBZOeypq3PAk=; b=UoIVJ5un7vmStwm89230Dfm+wRZDLWksYbA33+TmBHwBfQ8NndOTKKyEpV+ug0uWgn mEJp6557Lbr9xR/SwvkuRLgIRKB1IIXaJM90oV89phOmLRKey/pBqqCYbFmkitK9CWPc HuAntXiVDKfxTuvXa8RMuJp7awePcfAw6MhARB/qz0iX/ubUug+2h2xSTKJo7jaGxUOy wsVN/PzhoWkUBD+ASAgtlYoCH0yoVUbVM8IYAuPE2iKsgGMKbCM4tL2iJZZovA9uRP1M cvM4YTHfjqQ0ljQSiLPaKZHtSe/4zr9hKM0HvZIm70im7Jb+kcb0iOA+VQuEQqOn0P4Y exBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GL7FXOvARcbDvRQNiFau3sZcWw5m5zxIBZOeypq3PAk=; b=YtK51zDJ0gW4YEAkqJUSvZj3TGL0jNNAbJvdSVgF4r4NlRIGcgO3zypQFY0C/oxnZy nNBkUcAUfCob+3TV3AcTNL1G1Mx9t0aAnbgHroMhzVAMYbsRHOYZkU74c7ZBJuzsVC1s tz8tdFuz+CGLMPU9IVkRzSRmfFRxDwZZJA4dcfDhHTDnotvPnsDUrh8PLNwKPggxJcrA PqRBqHrRbiFHzEQFVoMSWJgropOQDy2sXAWsNumCYoJaurwXYo6SThlK4AA3goIL9Wan Db+LW29/zNFqmQHTtYbghvVfMW5iQLwi+FOuOpqups2IbJY6qz6yaP8e1t5yZ2lKj+xx +mMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7G/hNyEqR2i9EAetVI6gja+uZdhMSXe8wIJTkjmlmY6U+gPnJBE H8jAvSoreaazcSQHtxtjSWyFYkvJ6Ukn8Wbq9x0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvR8jt7WPx4UlYM2yOyRW9rQUaTsAVNyZxDi9ECCARWzi6xIevc9Dbi3vRf9Uq5LVdz9Cn5DK+Cdr0Kyrbz2+Q= X-Received: by 10.55.134.133 with SMTP id i127mr34543237qkd.275.1520438170737; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 07:56:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.54.215 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:56:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Barry Leiba Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 10:56:10 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3iVO9ZvQCZnXF-ixGYO9KU1E9P0 Message-ID: To: Satoru Kanno Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Takehito Akagiri , "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 07 Mar 2018 15:56:13 -0000 We will add this to the agenda. Does anyone else have specific agenda items they'd like to have added? Barry, as chair On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Satoru Kanno wrote: > Dear DMARC WG Chairs, > > I'm sending to you on behalf of Genki Yasutaka-san. > > As I asked you last November, we are preparing for the next track, > with the intention of not only reviewing this draft, but also > implementing for verification of vDMARC. If possible, I'd like to > discuss this at IETF 101. > > [Details] > ---------------------- > - What I want to talk? > Draft Overview and Implementation of vDMARC > > - Time required > 10 minutes (*even for 5 minutes, if your schedule is too busy to adjust.) > > - Internet Draft > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification/ > ---------------------- > > Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. > > Regards, > Satoru > > -- > Satoru Kanno > Lepidum Co. Ltd. > > E-Mail: kanno@lepidum.co.jp > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From nobody Fri Mar 9 14:05:01 2018 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 8EBC41242F7 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:04:59 -0800 (PST) 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=a0OrfhyG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=zHljnupp 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 GKjjH5lHxUnT for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.santronics.com (groups.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828B0120721 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:04:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2049; t=1520633089; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=ixqFPfa5k5K35noIsb8wm3fa3fM=; b=a0OrfhyGl5WjonEKU4WbPv5k52vCINVOwgZFcBInbNxTDormj45bzXcxSfqvw/ cIwhXqWebegvg0d/gcpdZBbj9b3ZOQ9cThACghet1ue9uK++Moq9bz6qku0DdTH7 loIECIFaQx0muXpAnVjZhp3bFTj07h9sHcqyZJygPvjb0= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 17:04:49 -0500 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 ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 1911781259.1.6476; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 17:04:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2049; t=1520632743; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=XubUqIL Z+amDaD8ZvATbOz142MDCWwxqCGHvb2h/UWY=; b=zHljnuppN7+npQEvHuiGgBF P/yX8zckumMuDWdSO4rNtsnRAwAWLmjyi8NIZ4wpVWTDe0MwfleKN6eWppAC/BfW UnzFtsMY5k1DIRbcqRRQwxU/cS/C5Uki//qOAISY+1Aeb3WmcgtyP3LurHntLWlz Z9yVXlzoMyI0IX9f4Ak4= Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:59:03 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 1911649377.9.224180; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 17:04:53 -0500 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: Satoru Kanno , dmarc@ietf.org CC: Takehito Akagiri , "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 09 Mar 2018 22:05:00 -0000 On 3/7/2018 3:21 AM, Satoru Kanno wrote: > Dear DMARC WG Chairs, > > I'm sending to you on behalf of Genki Yasutaka-san. > > As I asked you last November, we are preparing for the next track, > with the intention of not only reviewing this draft, but also > implementing for verification of vDMARC. If possible, I'd like to > discuss this at IETF 101. > > [Details] > ---------------------- > - What I want to talk? > Draft Overview and Implementation of vDMARC > > - Time required > 10 minutes (*even for 5 minutes, if your schedule is too busy to adjust.) > > - Internet Draft > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification/ > ---------------------- > > Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. +1 to discussing this the concept. Overall, I think "default" protocol considerations should be included as part of a DMARC Proposed Standard effort. Interesting note stated by this draft: Microsoft Office365 employs the same technique as one mentioned in this draft ([BestGuessPass]). They append "dmarc=bestguesspass" to the Authentication-Results to indicate the authenticity of received emails to receiving MUAs. Why can't there be a "dmarc=bestguessfail?" If the Author Domain (5322.From) has no DMARC record, but there is a matching domain SPF record with a HARDFAIL policy, when a message fails due to SPF, some systems will reject at SMTP before or at DATA or accept and quarantine the SPF failed message. With the former, this concept does't apply since there is no AR record for this result. With the latter, the result "dmarc=bestguessfail" would better match what SPF exclusively produced - a failed condition. I actually found this to be a high true condition: If a domain has an exclusive, restricted SPF record (HARDFAIL), the odds are very high that the same or equal spoof detections (failures) would result if the domain only had a exclusive, restricted DKIM Policy model (ADSP, DMARC) record and not a SPF record. -- HLS From nobody Fri Mar 9 19:06:34 2018 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 05BA8127077 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 19:06:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailforce.net header.b=Coj0926E; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=RZwJtEhE 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 8BqrNy_RhHQl for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 19:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F3BC1200F1 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 19:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8228C2111D; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 09 Mar 2018 22:06:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailforce.net; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=YogWmA0bT3xi5St7+ vbBLhp+47a9AtgfF0zOKXVY5t8=; b=Coj0926EwOrqnmlofBWxevvmvEjOJvjEa v8rRnSR9FT9eSfZlgVlj0Qfaxyr7wZSNOS6UhT4IxLstkSsLVmpyTYc7BdvFyU9E 7b3L+9tXRLSAmYdIlpmeYcep9caxEKI3MSgdmj4Z54ed2XcnUWGoZBfRMhm3vQ41 wHNXw+aMjnpsrZfDuVCeQm90XE6GyiEaGS01ztSaieELhhyCV0bDsRYoBvVK7XUu igPF4TdtFDzrMMkIVugIXujMx2f57rcQpB74J96A8PedVS6Z7i43O5TbhVyNquz4 s1LjvSU8HPUuW7ieWBLcbLAAPJZznVPw/TaSJlt9QLFW+WOl8gO4w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=YogWmA 0bT3xi5St7+vbBLhp+47a9AtgfF0zOKXVY5t8=; b=RZwJtEhEnMxpcOts0D37Wa B0FpcpVrrEtRI1nuetZO290RhlpLGB81t/eHa7lAf65EHH4CjJyOxKl0hTVIWj3Y RBUoyoyYV22zYnHuPz5jj9qYVEttIboADvEKUEOFUdwIKSagTOlH+8yKW6ZPyjR4 1vcrlJ12sb1Q6yozT9xUsQxe9Qt707ZfdF4gkr8UnUkkxsYjD5cfhyJK++7yeN5P HRw99YDz+Ekr4ZDmEBw5QuUDf4OiwgqhEVqyOPGcUeFzlRoAmt/bUbx4JQaFXJ97 kicNrbJak7zxbF9k+ARIHzM0fTgUVZCQdxnqEEpYW7wymgrp7+LploXJMFfVbwJw == X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.1.71] (108-84-31-27.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net [108.84.31.27]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F3DC57E07F; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:06:30 -0500 (EST) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-D389BB89-54CE-4694-BD55-4523897878CB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <4587FC3F-59EC-45C4-B9AF-ACBDCEBCF65B@glyphein.mailforce.net> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Takehito Akagiri , "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13G36) From: Stan Kalisch Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:06:28 -0500 To: Satoru Kanno Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 10 Mar 2018 03:06:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail-D389BB89-54CE-4694-BD55-4523897878CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Satoru, > On Mar 7, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Satoru Kanno wrote: >=20 > Dear DMARC WG Chairs, >=20 > I'm sending to you on behalf of Genki Yasutaka-san. >=20 > As I asked you last November, we are preparing for the next track, > with the intention of not only reviewing this draft, but also > implementing for verification of vDMARC. If possible, I'd like to > discuss this at IETF 101. >=20 > [Details] > ---------------------- > - What I want to talk? > Draft Overview and Implementation of vDMARC >=20 > - Time required > 10 minutes (*even for 5 minutes, if your schedule is too busy to adjust.)= >=20 > - Internet Draft > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verificatio= n/ I've only been able to give this draft a brief initial look, but I do have c= omments regarding two issues. First, regarding this text: "In this draft, we propose to explicitly mark emails which are potentially "dmarc=3Dpass", but are not marked as such via regular DMARC ver= ification (None(2)), as "dmarc=3Dpass"." What could happen as the result of this behavior, in the cases of forwarding= or mailing lists, one could end up with one Authentication-Results header w= hich contains, "dmarc=3Dpass", but another which contains, "dmarc=3Dnone". W= hich bizarrely, in this kind of scenario, bypasses the mailing-list problem D= MARC presently suffers from, but, well, arguably further confuses the issue,= and calls into question the draft's assertion that "simply utilizing "dmarc=3Dpass" makes it easier to leverage the field...for end users without= enough expertise..." (I suppose you could still make that argument if the e= nd user is viewing the "DMARC-ish" result via a UI like, say, GMail's, and t= hat UI presents some kind of calibrated result.) Second, regarding this text: "There would be differing opinions regarding DMARC reports. One is the opin= ion that reports without explicitly published DMARC records are harmful, whi= le another one is that without reports, virtual DMARC verification can not b= e called DMARC. Currently, we are siding with the first opinion in this dra= ft." I don't see how you have a choice. The second option, in practice, results i= n bulk, unsolicited email. Thanks, Stan= --Apple-Mail-D389BB89-54CE-4694-BD55-4523897878CB Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Satoru,

On= Mar 7, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Satoru Kanno <kanno@lepidum.co.jp> wrote:

Dear DMARC WG Chairs,

I'm se= nding to you on behalf of Genki Yasutaka-san.

As I asked you last November, we are preparing for the next track,=
with the intention of not only reviewing this draft, but also
implementing for verification of vDMARC. If possible, I'd like t= o
discuss this at IETF 101.

[Details]
----------------------
- What I w= ant to talk?
 Draft Overview and Implementation of vDM= ARC

- Time required
 = 10 minutes (*even for 5 minutes, if your schedule is too busy to adjust.)

- Internet Draft
  = ;https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-ver= ification/

I've only been able to give this= draft a brief initial look, but I do have comments regarding two issues.

First= , regarding this text:

"In this draft, we propose to explicitly mark emails= which are
<=
span style=3D"white-space: normal; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);=
">potentially "dmarc=3Dpass", but are not marked as such via regular DMARC v=
erification (None(2)), as "dmarc=3Dpass"."

What could happen as t=
he result of this behavior, in the cases of forwarding or mailing lists, one=
 could end up with one Authentication-Results header which contains, "dmarc=3D=
pass", but another which contains, "dmarc=3Dnone".  Which bizarrely, in=
 this kind of scenario, bypasses the mailing-list problem DMARC presently su=
ffers from, but, well, arguably further confuses the issue, and calls into q=
uestion the draft's assertion that "simply utilizing
"dmarc=3Dpass" make= s it easier to leverage the field...for end users without enough expertise..= ."  (I suppose you could still make that argument if the end user is vi= ewing the "DMARC-ish" result via a UI like, say, GMail's, and that UI presen= ts some kind of calibrated result.)
=

Second, regarding this text:=


"There would be differing opinions regardin=
g DMARC reports.  One is the opinion that reports without explicitly pu=
blished DMARC records are harmful, while another one is that without reports=
, virtual DMARC verification can not be called DMARC.  Currently, we ar=
e siding with the first opinion in this draft."

=

I don't see how=
 you have a choice.  The second option, in practice, results in bulk, u=
nsolicited email.


<=
font face=3D"UICTFontTextStyleBody">Thanks,
Stan
= --Apple-Mail-D389BB89-54CE-4694-BD55-4523897878CB-- From nobody Sun Mar 11 05:02:46 2018 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 D981C1201FA for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 XJuHrUp2O-Ca for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (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 3C1B1120724 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id e2so1717752ywh.9 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Io4SHdW5+zTw1Ra/B2EOiPazXaNYbpYPkjWlcD+K5jI=; b=LntnJX6TIFZupppYvoBpIlQVRHbiXP3HRVBKEmmSCb8FOtLnPVKpQrKA7WlIjFY084 qF7p1lNwGdrvZbomF0wK+4As+I/v2sSDgQDn3sh7n09uKteOsol4tDvqPGu96OdmjM3E L7s1ptsESfnyKeaHN2BKtq0PsiKkkm3oF/Z5nzMkV8v/DtrMDQjCEI8MMQAVDf85aoja KNFl3+MUW4fiwk4MeSwtai/F5tekkP4/VpeJ5LJf+zpw6jjQSfFPZdVhNMy6J4jIqK1s 1EeFPCqSQTI8rdpfKqRQClOHFpfiY0M8RUoAor+nBdDulq19jnY5qdjhPnTgatBOEGIL UzDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=Io4SHdW5+zTw1Ra/B2EOiPazXaNYbpYPkjWlcD+K5jI=; b=MgnnfdrwvehDem0RhMRW1m3FkrKJquc5raXJG/SPWxJgjOxH6Iplvp7EhPg5HCwcX7 42an+3aFT1i78nkW0/8kiuDPDr4AMbaKQdk4I7MNwC2tPnMBgsqZJP3SEiN8/cHcPUMF Kq6a1gS/cBIaJryMEw6Yxcc0elwcKLNetThW1dCOdguPDDlKlQhWTDto3+H9az8IeEqa Y398SjVOz7auz5RaVcCg2LgfshcCtMDLP5B+bKl/n1Jma7pWPE1+jzqBZkGn/QuW2T6h 2pah+6guqoGUMiOTS5IWyZl/XYNfEAOX0sYkmGuDJ7WVMZ1Vj02PcecCz8w4yiFcnl2Y elHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F5VvO0dBWRjtAgwSzquClVjdxh+c8VS5kY/3MBr/A2TBmViuYc velFY5HZTlH7BqSW9Jh1Ch/Xa8bASnCPHuCjwvDhEg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs2i8ol8XtFTuEMkoOug7VSp5TS7VkEx9b5hG1aBn4ZY2kiehl6wC49CrPR4DQn/iBGUUvkB0BOq2oLqGtif2U= X-Received: by 10.13.244.3 with SMTP id d3mr2669482ywf.317.1520769762946; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a25:39c4:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 05:02:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Leiba Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:02:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EQJz-itf4JGJ59JFdGdhWBsq-Tg Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 11 Mar 2018 12:02:46 -0000 I have uploaded a preliminary session agenda here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here. Barry From nobody Mon Mar 12 16:03:26 2018 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 885621201F8 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:24 -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 zoFwyG866Q2B for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 0F8E6124BFA for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id e28-v6so16916349lfc.3 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=EmNz0SUJ6lVLowvENV3eB6q6kFx9VRpKpbPZCl1gzgs=; b=COlxoOWdALEgY/+m/8wdJXf4gqmaXMdBrfUkXGZEeAI+P/NA/rrmEnzxFECYR0Ce1N Pn94nOVRc/qyLHfyfh8DNhRicHs1UPOub/CaRwd0gPA/U1mpxZ+SSbQ0hYY3C5/KF6Iu BmZi/EO0z8QJJNPwfpTwnNeqnoTCZ8NcUQXM0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EmNz0SUJ6lVLowvENV3eB6q6kFx9VRpKpbPZCl1gzgs=; b=Z96QRwqXWK4j7+JQlYYPtUEaxFagbcjUkzBX39wJ5vMSEszZIl9uVo7vZd3MmBkNrv UOPAr8OMmyQwbn/Cg9fs2aS/iVRQtN4UnKLEiPc2y86CPdIEUq92hiZ7o1UmCH3464kd HGWIjkzZ0ukgUdgVyYec2cFUsTjccEwqauVedIB5C9jWGxO/QFHFoJtgbOhMSor3uaEe 8G7GOQuYT41Z1l9LpN7LoBJAg8lkq2lv0RDHVksnxVt99R8gGVy3qkosxaR/ukJhYp/l qJi1G75JO+D+fu3pIZ9WNN3SUlsd5+VMXbxuotitw/1iHXjD5JZkrQBVk68+KNHw48HC gjzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EKVSGn/FJRZPCQdrL05NVriBnUaZRBlXZKoVZGd6YJ2MX46Xlf 6gCUvOhRbO6kXDRaIRz0fq4GJfzBrlYt0HSPnIW0nLrGKqI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt+tJp4MsjoOViyDvCcTPWcMNcYaGeO9YDsKf5go+Z7ztEYEr5+qDVeoOAn4vO+w10pEvOtTsyEJtxQXqMmVZo= X-Received: by 2002:a19:4c09:: with SMTP id z9-v6mr6013848lfa.141.1520895800139; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:03:19 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: q5Ugs1hRVoSGh2pBtQnc_8B_Bj8 Message-ID: To: Barry Leiba Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e87d3b05673f2508" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 12 Mar 2018 23:03:24 -0000 --000000000000e87d3b05673f2508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Seems like we might want to discuss specific steps toward the next milestone per our charter. I think that ARC is a method of "support[ing] indirect mail flows" but we haven't even discussed the other brainstorm ideas that were tossed into the charter (listed below). Are all of these items necessary to get DMARC put onto a standards track or were they just ideas floated at the time DMARC-WG was chartered so that we'd have some things to discuss? --Kurt (part of 2) Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment, reporting, policy preferences) will be considered, such as: - Enumeration of data elements required in "Failure" reports (specifically to address privacy issues) - Handling potential reporting abuse - Aggregate reporting to support additional reporting scenarios - Alternate reporting channels - Utility of arbitrary identifier alignment - Utility of a formalized policy exception mechanism 3. DMARC Usage The working group will document operational practices in terms of configuration, installation, monitoring, diagnosis and reporting. It will catalog currently prevailing guidelines as well as developing advice on practices that are not yet well-established but which are believed to be appropriate. The group will consider separating configuration and other deployment information that needs to be in the base spec, from information that should be in a separate guide. and the corresponding work items: Phase II: - Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows - Draft Guide on DMARC Usage Phase III: - Review and refinement of the DMARC specification - Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I have uploaded a preliminary session agenda here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc > > If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to > add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > --000000000000e87d3b05673f2508 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Seems like we might want to discuss specific steps toward = the next milestone per our charter. I think that ARC is a method of "s= upport[ing] indirect mail flows" but we haven't even discussed the= other brainstorm ideas that were tossed into the charter (listed below). A= re all of these items necessary to get DMARC put onto a standards track or = were they just ideas floated at the time DMARC-WG was chartered so that we&= #39;d have some things to discuss?

--Kurt

(p= art of 2) Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment, reporting, = policy preferences) will be considered, such as:

- Enumeration of data elements required in "Failure" rep= orts (specifically to address privacy issues)
- Handling potential= reporting abuse
- Aggregate reporting to support additional repor= ting scenarios
- Alternate reporting channels
- Utility o= f arbitrary identifier alignment
- Utility of a formalized policy = exception mechanism

3. DMARC Usage

The working group will document operational practices in terms of con= figuration, installation, monitoring, diagnosis and reporting. It will cata= log currently prevailing guidelines as well as developing advice on practic= es that are not yet well-established but which are believed to be appropria= te.

The group will consider separating configuration and other deployment= information that needs to be in the base spec, from information that shoul= d be in a separate guide.

and the corresponding work items:
Phase II:

- Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows

=

- Draft Guide on DMARC Usage

Phase III:

- Review and refinement of the DMARC specification

- Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage



On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 = at 5:02 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrot= e:
I have uploaded a preliminary session = agenda here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc

If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to
add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here.

Barry

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

--000000000000e87d3b05673f2508-- From nobody Mon Mar 12 16:47:35 2018 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 298CE126D74 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:34 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 r0-kcA1GDtg4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (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 3650C124F57 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 108so17146097otv.3 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WBPPitGKyj3Or4m7ELT4O6dXwFst9KyuHsrbcR9poGI=; b=fspSmicAfhirK3xtTI663qt5ae6HCrhe4dOOrj2pDNMD/t77ZT7w18xqF/TWfSyiz+ oTY0ptQETVM1PlqXyDKY8RP2Zjb6SWb8gKgLAxziEXvp5Ot0F33RrH9/gT5eFnH/Agwt NoWeJxPKcZiKQhs+91Lt9J4IcuVq/uF4WHaLgj9lUau42bN6thDawBdCHGkk9kidLtm4 KbJ6gdb5AMUfR+TBLqd/6y7kgYtD2Q7tvFM+Iapear0GtkQZ7/jJjvhQXAKgymPHtyve rU+SijBLqGnw/ySqRMJYHhf/kgFkg1b+Bpy/YT2cpzfJ7wB3yEZmM0kvjcMLZ1ZOL5dR 07WA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WBPPitGKyj3Or4m7ELT4O6dXwFst9KyuHsrbcR9poGI=; b=VzBLxR3Yrle3VTiY89CZrLDFDg5jlEXkhhMXyW2VMKX2sy5M9XTWWTGCEnbUq8P7uj JwpNmX/3j3AcMhPRSkPKE2hEy0sOVU6H1AEdD/xSZL0gxskZ6y87WmM1tqsPWkqABpc7 kiqUxOf4/RfYI8l22kuT+dVJA+bgvFcnqb7W7tgD8Vcjuv3827/5FjLp6hpTzknXwBgG J1Ev/rr3VoxmplSHgISVnsqAki7LHdROupsGFls6yxAtIFjITCT3uc8xLeQO81id4X5T 9aeENm74JoTMOuApTy+Gqy2cX29Aw3NS7mpLivZNNx0OAcmUui/2PrWlwvIg26puH9QE 4tfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F5892RQReEmWN9fLv6Ci6cEQNplaIeu8yp1sgmWgXjgmEOdIKp CuoHiRLs3cLyhu0qHlzT3UEII0K5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtBmzTHW88IlMjlIWCuUyIsZ1aIM7Zg8H5gQ/JooijVVnl5Et9KCAO4prK6lZJTRuNwQojoeA== X-Received: by 10.157.43.16 with SMTP id o16mr6386247otb.96.1520898441015; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:870:e857:e77a:24c4:6110? ([2600:1700:a3a0:870:e857:e77a:24c4:6110]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q8sm4070918oig.30.2018.03.12.16.47.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:19 -0700 (PDT) To: Barry Leiba References: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org From: Dave Crocker Message-ID: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:47:16 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 12 Mar 2018 23:47:34 -0000 On 3/11/2018 5:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I have uploaded a preliminary session agenda here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc the agenda shows: > 18:15 25 min Next steps, including: > - draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification That's quite a long time to discuss something that isn't really dmarc. DMARC introduces the alignment construct, publication of a policy record, and a reporting mechanism. The proposal is to take note of alignment, independent of whether the domain owner has published a policy about it. Having a report take note of validated alignment well might be worth doing, but it's not DMARC. My impression is that after ARC, the industry interest is in finding a path that standardizes DMARC. This proposal does not serve that goal. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Mar 12 18:57:46 2018 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 BBD091277BB for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 Xdt3YksEXnva for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0BF12708C for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n128-v6so11388600ith.1 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=dL4i86PhTRDrIdGXfKSJmsWkXLon/3OkVSoMgSdE/OY=; b=uTcrnQSdNXGRzN8NLN0UfGfH2tfBlgKvYLmqurTg1zxfILrg7sYlAE5OtMExQYVvb5 y4b9XRmwYLqaXGNTvv2/3AeimsIeb1YOiEDWjGSQyKwU9nISDl+5oIq/hKF9VIGkGTAp c0yKB0SPWcAjUhDXs8QE1ltYRDFVgt+lofrIGUfoa0O5A45xvuzs5SWIcnwD0OvOr0I8 y8Vpy9Sy9rm7H9uU/yxwlKc5xO7QfTaBSvH8+rfuNKAMmcG0L9Kah0V6jIC/bQF+PqdN DqTNbXTKxXaUeuRcrD4pKD85t4jpMRrZqO9RCh8pR4GdPhzUCB9oNcsNoc7J8tqjtA+P nZlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dL4i86PhTRDrIdGXfKSJmsWkXLon/3OkVSoMgSdE/OY=; b=jsevKogwxCySKxEAYfdxXL3c298AWCnKetvQWyGNlRdIusHC0G8x6U4zhpp8yRQFAa h/+5oae5GIhI3joWFmBlhp/ASPf7fv6nAE2BjEp1kr846Zfzo1IKKy61C9LeO+cUS2mG OQUKpK8mqiQuKDf1+E0ssr0uLKv3usKiP14Yjx0p+aHAb2il+8xmXpeJNUPO+OTHSll/ A8nhcyGLABctNq+dYZRPDbSvqS95YPiAF+pgJSgkhM59XRgdyPsDUiVOc9p9vb1ltlAK CPR4akwI4QCRGctBiv/Hs7/uDKWS73YLMe70HDX1TRiBCZ7AOpCEw8zOranoatDs+Nok j9Gg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HlBAeKXzC3EUlenRJGKy3B9+WPxcKaW4XVDqJKmxGsgzGPXbvx tUcV3uU4raQTPSeJP59iUbqU1T9Ne4JGhquhEkU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuCucKQmBgnJ8aP7j1+jzRFsL1B1zGM+bYkIGcBABbg2n0OJ3IB7i7Od/aQ/2jTOJHpBEFMoD3ihx9A2C8MhNw= X-Received: by 10.36.23.209 with SMTP id 200mr11296716ith.15.1520906261728; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.192.162.100 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:57:41 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eldSNJDw1jTKvZAcrW-yxe3JR34 Message-ID: To: Dave Crocker Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:57:45 -0000 >> 18:15 25 min Next steps, including: >> - draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification > > That's quite a long time to discuss something that isn't really dmarc. Not all 25 minutes are for that; that is included in the time slot, along with anything else we put into "next steps". (And I'm expecting that we'll wind up with more than 25 minutes, in the end.) > My impression is that after ARC, the industry interest is in finding a path > that standardizes DMARC. This proposal does not serve that goal. We can certainly discuss whether we should consider the virtual-verification proposal at all; please do that on that thread. Very much, please do. I do expect that we'll discuss "path toward a Proposed Standard version of DMARC," and I'll put that into the "next steps" section on the next update to the agenda. Barry From nobody Mon Mar 12 20:10:09 2018 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 8CEAF127AD4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:10:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailforce.net header.b=OXuXWKxP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=FU5BhxBx 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 jeOHPX3wZUrv for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389EB127909 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C1220FDE; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:10:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailforce.net; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=5wQEpo3dOgevUzs/K S2euDyJXYmn/3GLz213VpVk5UE=; b=OXuXWKxPufPbmPjntryHSOQBgjX/+ySVy moEmG25de61Oep3EB1xQO6RJQeT/47adlUYn4IYQDhlDj0vNHaCQIK2H4Yv9hR50 huI7dQqfgz4r2/RS8EXhKh9AMF+VwB/yThqE1fSZhZbxHm2yXJewQb3O+Kpr09g5 Hh0UCUxSZbb81dcnwfNiXAeItY58Dwa6fg6cmUJOv0JfcasvHN5kxyqPuvgOQc/Y 09Gf230MtYCk+Zv71cGPBCuM5IQpdss5d7fdx30GP49KxBRzByebUlxplC4qRNN3 ZqriVGdf0BJIzcynq6v0QAmXfrLa+WiMro8WOHOYmcLaw1vfz443Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=5wQEpo 3dOgevUzs/KS2euDyJXYmn/3GLz213VpVk5UE=; b=FU5BhxBxmmmlMfQFsuvCYd r1Y0QWMs23cYG5jzIsl4V6JPPBq3TfCkcB8YBZWbuw3V0AR54i3Kg/7w9A4Rbdfh gFByDkF19p61mz8pYJbiwWxZLL8KNuA7fIfPdGE8tF54CvRyqrLW9cz7cdXaWmIz kgCrLr856qY53IkAI5OQHJq17W4gM8SowcNMtvIIED78MXDYr/icCdoeUVJu26K6 k3GEHwTfCW79PA9qUpGymLIsTZFM4SfP3spLjuYxdbibHXA8OlA6b3fSp1TovZy5 T4BpV7eK+2l421vbK6v8qfDNDQUAtF6bAtp6MB4zaBQDU6jICqfFhKoTgmM+OCGQ == X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.1.71] (108-84-31-27.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net [108.84.31.27]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 272B97E188; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:10:05 -0400 (EDT) References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4D42B5AF-B245-44E0-9DBA-8362B7EF9A43@glyphein.mailforce.net> Cc: Barry Leiba , dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13G36) From: Stan Kalisch Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:10:02 -0400 To: Dave Crocker Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:10:08 -0000 On Mar 12, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> - draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification [...] > The proposal is to take note of alignment, independent of whether the doma= in owner has published a policy about it. Having a report take note of vali= dated alignment well might be worth doing, but it's not DMARC. Not all of these points will apply to the WG (or the IETF for that matter), a= nd I've already responded in the thread about the draft, but, for the sake o= f concision, the central questions seem to me: 1) Is this DMARC? 2) If it isn't, should it still be in an RFC? 3) If it shouldn't be in an RFC, is it nevertheless of use to implementors?= Based on what you and other people have said, I would think the WG should fi= rst achieve consensus on question 1, regardless of whether the draft is part= of the meeting or not. Thanks, Stan= From nobody Tue Mar 13 06:42:53 2018 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 599E612D944 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 tK_cd5wE-YeQ for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x231.google.com (mail-ot0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::231]) (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 DE8EA126C83 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x231.google.com with SMTP id h8so18970942oti.6 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ipg7skayGPr/Wz3IwKXdWMKpsfh0kLt7XSpNleuCrww=; b=Zx9KD3nMlgLhHNsXwTTn+8f0ppT7YYlVDhDyc8LsYWFsr0EPPcymqGkn2Qv9svFg/K Yq8PSsp1bpOOgesY/G/oc3a8L3QW0Zy/OqteFmK0PCw5R4M0tJxW++hb1gWTdKFW6KlS z+yYpyu+ZRAVd27tCxbXwCbkCKC58nyUDzxeC/ujWk3rZZWvgnOvjRmiv9t+i9n1sGjh iQUPOa3oDbLU9ROBLq2L0SX4WHEoS6+MYY9Lj5N0S6Zp56CyWhmPiN4qEm3fHbeFzNOU N9Dbs0ciJ8cl9oBDNuGxhi1+S7meSL7g1KGdVWMo4BzH09EKyxgM29+tphGuaxO/9dSx S9EQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ipg7skayGPr/Wz3IwKXdWMKpsfh0kLt7XSpNleuCrww=; b=UJGdT13Jh1orcx5UQVWcHrFITNQVe4Drt/QC6BJ+i1tmizsO3yDsQyZ/0oGNP9fsvS grLAsmZCKNw1Ash/cUL9XpzKb9kApZrA3PuCkOmkXqr5ZErm48/w1YXXcIWAIOOedofe t+9yd/CfLur9AKQHXdwEYZjrrGWMML+GfMkQCpCZDW0HeDQotvPLF6yUS3gF6ub73T5u S2R5awpX3cu5LfdCEUM2kbQyqAgEQzBde1RyFRVXvosjeN5u+fYGT/WZr8KVsRrfH+0p rl3BVsxb5tuoAfRtkjizWreW6kPeQiude8F7e7pqtA+J3cB5IyNNfuQnRqUrlTVFidfW St+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Gt3IhRDBOxFyRPSaDDZgHAuQQBo3HQjrZdgelQMsLoiIdB21Jm r3jIkjn1bSOu3MjRUjp5Nudq/SkB X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvHHGq17tbyJ9Y4qp/6nelH26ZNaXYHULvyPAide2smJBpSKGDlEjj0O/KpruJiF9w08km/WQ== X-Received: by 10.157.72.176 with SMTP id d45mr461940otf.202.1520948568395; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:870:e857:e77a:24c4:6110? ([2600:1700:a3a0:870:e857:e77a:24c4:6110]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g50sm139007otd.22.2018.03.13.06.42.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:46 -0700 (PDT) To: Barry Leiba Cc: dmarc@ietf.org References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> From: Dave Crocker Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:42:43 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" (was: Re: Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:42:51 -0000 On 3/12/2018 6:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Not all 25 minutes are for that; that is included in the time slot, > along with anything else we put into "next steps". ... > I do expect that we'll discuss "path toward a Proposed Standard > version of DMARC," and I'll put that into the "next steps" section on > the next update to the agenda. I suggest broaching this topic here and now, so the agenda entry can show something other than an off-charter draft. To prime that pump... > Phase II: > > Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect > mail flows 1. Besides ARC, are there other wg efforts that should be pursued to satisfy this? ARC targets intermediary action in mail that originated with a DMARC-satisfying configuration. ARC does not attend to mail that starts without that. That is, mail starting from an independent third party source, such as a kiosk. > Draft Guide on DMARC Usage Current version is -04, so this charter item appears to be satisfied. > Phase III: > > Review and refinement of the DMARC specification Is there technical work on the base specification that would improve it? One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC. Does DMARC still 'fail'? Yet the whole point of ARC is to create the possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this. And from a note I posted last August: "BTW, the DMARC spec uses the terms 'pass' and 'fail' with respect to the underlying authentication mechanisms of DKIM and SPF. It also uses it within the context of DMARC processing, itself, but it does not define what those terms mean, in that context. Beyond reference to DMARC 'policy' records, text in the specs that talk about processing DMARC policy is similarly implicit, rather than explicit. The only clear, explicit directive about DMARC outcomes seems to be Section 6.6.2 #6, Apply policy." > Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage What will it take to complete this doc? One example would be a spec revision effort that targets clarification, based on experience coding and deploying DMARC. I'll also suggest that it would help allay public concerns about DMARC to be able to have this document include experience-based text about ARC usage; both discussing how to use it and how effective it is. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Tue Mar 13 08:32:29 2018 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 B449E126C22 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=americangreetings.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 vVbGU7z4sXCU for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer4.americangreetings.com (mailer4.americangreetings.com [66.119.43.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 340E8127419 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:32:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=americangreetings.com; s=q42010; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@americangreetings.com; t=1520955144; x=1552491144; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Cc:Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=jQJe+sUoL/AymiYjzKzCi3Q5YzgxTgi4g2VMtVoJ3Xw=; b=YJ7reUcxVkNbSDEw2gWA1mEgkKvr4lcDMG9BlaQM6H5O0BcMAdL61FS6IYZkm1H1 36cayxHeT983ppsyXPi9EnyZ1sdytK3kG4mf4BRx4TFsLth2lWuflTDhKjliU8+H QcjTRM/W/JNbCwUNH7epwEF9s9/45Vbl4CJLXs39nt4=; Received: from [66.119.43.83] ([66.119.43.83:14592] helo=dc3-mbox.ops.ag.com) by momentum7 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.18.52357 r(Core:3.6.18.0)) with ESMTP id 6A/D3-13274-80FE7AA5; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:32:24 -0400 Received: from AGILT7-A06114 ([10.210.42.24]) by dc3-mbox.ops.ag.com (8.14.4/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w2DFWLPw012207; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:32:24 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by AGILT7-A06114 (PGP Universal service); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:32:24 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by AGILT7-A06114 on Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:32:24 -0500 To: dmarc@ietf.org Cc: Dave Crocker , Barry Leiba References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> From: "mhammer@americangreetings.com" Message-ID: <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:32:00 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:32:28 -0000 On 3/13/2018 9:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/12/2018 6:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Not all 25 minutes are for that; that is included in the time slot, >> along with anything else we put into "next steps". > ... >> I do expect that we'll discuss "path toward a Proposed Standard >> version of DMARC," and I'll put that into the "next steps" section on >> the next update to the agenda. > > I suggest broaching this topic here and now, so the agenda entry can > show something other than an off-charter draft. Wise choice. +1 > > > To prime that pump... > > >>    Phase II: >> >>       Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect >> mail flows > > 1.  Besides ARC, are there other wg efforts that should be pursued to > satisfy this? > >    ARC targets intermediary action in mail that originated with a > DMARC-satisfying configuration.  ARC does not attend to mail that > starts without that.  That is, mail starting from an independent third > party source, such as a kiosk. > > >>       Draft Guide on DMARC Usage > > Current version is -04, so this charter item appears to be satisfied. > > >>    Phase III: >> >>       Review and refinement of the DMARC specification > > Is there technical work on the base specification that would improve it? > >      One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC.  Does DMARC still > 'fail'?  Yet the whole point of ARC is to create the possibility of > still getting delivered, in spite of this. My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not need to be a spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local policy a validator/mailbox provider implements. > >     And from a note I posted last August:  "BTW, the DMARC spec uses > the terms 'pass' and 'fail' with respect to the underlying > authentication mechanisms of DKIM and SPF. It also uses it within the > context of DMARC processing, itself, but it does not define what those > terms mean, in that context.  Beyond reference to DMARC 'policy' > records, text in the specs that talk about processing DMARC policy is > similarly implicit, rather than explicit. The only clear, explicit > directive about DMARC outcomes seems to be Section 6.6.2 #6, Apply > policy." > I need to think on this a bit more and go re-read the spec before formulating a response. > >>       Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage > > What will it take to complete this doc? > >      One example would be a spec revision effort that targets > clarification, based on experience coding and deploying DMARC. > > >      I'll also suggest that it would help allay public concerns about > DMARC to be able to have this document include experience-based text > about ARC usage; both discussing how to use it and how effective it is. If this is the case, I would suggest renaming the document to "Guide on DMARC and ARC Usage" rather than the original title. Mike From nobody Tue Mar 13 15:44:54 2018 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 63F3B12D82F for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:44:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=QY1xHLSe; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=cvOeRoWu 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 qDjHtsse9dpa for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ftp.catinthebox.net (dkim.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CC8126FDC for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:44:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1446; t=1520981083; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=M5n1HiIksf7PFhcuVDwi6O/xZpc=; b=QY1xHLSezeo2lP1qLmxTAyyr5gKlZLiBFNkz7Hqp4r1WWR0eejMPTw2N1kPAgN mbHL/Im8O5NCIm+wmWVD2nxpgHe8y4fn+V917/LT3VddqRXGSGBCJt9+o7RxyEcO Ks4JvWWgRXF29cujX3uKt54SZoziDCE97/AjQqDRzpOgM= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:44:43 -0500 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 ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2259771270.1.1252; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:44:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1446; t=1520980725; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=ZK5FA9r bX73mgumS7rCqe6BKqi8LGK8TKKmDtCFALyA=; b=cvOeRoWu+bnnYtVKOw+9Onh 88n8G8quYFZk+96P4IwWcZIji168xnDOo1BB7jB+hmgTPAY0yEoccmbmQJlMN8i7 ZMC4Upe+pue5dfJC/zSSjE7g/Evge4hucBBRBGb1RjR57J4d3kUy1mVI/yaOoCIg onpxGzphc7qb543RzlZA= Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:38:45 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2259631987.9.399440; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:38:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5AA85457.3010007@isdg.net> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:44:39 -0400 From: Hector Santos Organization: Santronics Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> In-Reply-To: <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:44:53 -0000 >> >> One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC. Does DMARC >> still 'fail'? Yet the whole point of ARC is to create the >> possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this. > > My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox > provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC > falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not need to be a > spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain > publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making > demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local > policy a validator/mailbox provider implements. > If a domain publishes a "p=reject/quarantine" (restrictive policy), the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine failures. If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handles failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy." Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine. The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing "psuedo-standard" protocol logic? I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal) that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some" p=reject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at the moment. The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC. -- HLS From nobody Wed Mar 14 14:37:39 2018 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 02AE5127775 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 rp3u9UQ5tL1X for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (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 D77601276AF for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id e98-v6so1305831itd.4 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:37:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Vry6mbKFCEniw+kKihdSOzEppyvCNxOZr6xRg9Cqzeg=; b=tLr7eYpEkbk1TKTjNCxJvQzKT/3Ii9tXXglDjnS7HvOYcIQuOZTpoqs+UX2MFIN1fZ GCaX3nIwSJMA7ARnarqWcEnY6cz54TWvRNkrN96LdHd5867NL7uc2cW2YW/PEOHM2q+k Rkm4OhNDHXIDbXPIGMszS5Bo0pHX9XBKVC91v+J8caoAeny+i2hg8ciOEKYlDJdCeN/F HJefQqy01lVJ86TMhGkao40fadPuYNRNoGg6FoMXHAuey2FzWwkWale62CL1NJi6ERs5 CvUIkHcAeQ/X0roh9+DY80sYqrC1OIH6EcCF/FTPtFyPsem9Qdc7Bl0/J7PMtSJMSyAd DYTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vry6mbKFCEniw+kKihdSOzEppyvCNxOZr6xRg9Cqzeg=; b=OsLSALC0kW5nT6e/vaaO4TtIMshRCD+8z5N2Uy9JTq9FsI5FNY2gcxSH8mZpYWWlZm 2qVZU6fG1ErjFgaiGtsc+4JwgXDvQIpW8x4no+UL/mkEbZaUuWJPhMUEPUhytrFo0RHI PRW1Dj8rzU88eyZETqwlIvO4i6xT7uUwEKN80lt6gfwt/kBiPv6YWLFXB/ydC4aXcsgy GoItnZHjhuXPyneGmOtw8bJ75IpkMH7R1Vs65gGRC1lnKafUio7rYgnMvCrWyHPYGObJ +V98BKHDamfjrDIfO+vgVMioLCVsWSLgeoXUbYaqQicc75IXIjWF22BDXxvZGdA7LIxg pkKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EutEIneJDnHdTgYk74MRHPyNgNfea8Z1gTSxD8+w+/4wLQq3a7 n5M60yh68MEX+011My0numA7dtkkvhfQFrEkhsh/1qk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv+WuPUuo+x/cjDNxMcxWe3akSltOs2H9NWDhDR/UiyPQuebY1znXKDSI2BX25N4rYhHJwTsgh7SQWch+mZtho= X-Received: by 2002:a24:2490:: with SMTP id f138-v6mr3616200ita.131.1521063454484; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:37:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> <5AA85457.3010007@isdg.net> In-Reply-To: <5AA85457.3010007@isdg.net> From: Brandon Long Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:37:23 +0000 Message-ID: To: Hector Santos Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e348d50567662eca" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 14 Mar 2018 21:37:38 -0000 --000000000000e348d50567662eca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Hector Santos wrote: > >> > >> One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC. Does DMARC > >> still 'fail'? Yet the whole point of ARC is to create the > >> possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this. > > > > My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox > > provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC > > falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not need to be a > > spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain > > publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making > > demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local > > policy a validator/mailbox provider implements. > > > > If a domain publishes a "p=reject/quarantine" (restrictive policy), > the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine > failures. If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handles > failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy." > Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine. > > The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing > "psuedo-standard" protocol logic? > > I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal) > that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some" > p=reject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at > the moment. The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of > what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC. > I still object to this concept on the same basis as the last two times we had this discussion. Brandon --000000000000e348d50567662eca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On= Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC.= =C2=A0 Does DMARC
>> still 'fail'?=C2=A0 Yet the whole point of ARC is to creat= e the
>> possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this.
>
> My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox
> provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC > falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not ne= ed to be a
> spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain=
> publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making > demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local > policy a validator/mailbox provider implements.
>

If a domain publishes a "p=3Dreject/quarantine" (restrictive poli= cy),
the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine
failures.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handle= s
failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy.&= quot;
=C2=A0 Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine.

The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing
"psuedo-standard" protocol logic?

I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal)
that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some"
p=3Dreject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at
the moment.=C2=A0 The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of<= br> what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC.

I still object to this concept on the same basis= as the last two times we had this discussion.

Bra= ndon=C2=A0
--000000000000e348d50567662eca-- From nobody Wed Mar 14 14:38:19 2018 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 3FADD127869 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:18 -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 (2048-bit key) header.d=fiction.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 5ZYkXFQqOHdV for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A6C127775 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j7-v6so6563254ita.3 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fiction.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BjMIvwMhe+05gCpR1vootJbkdJsLGwnyFN20mtvD7GQ=; b=fSeRXaF/IrzT0ADCwkkdouIcdCqzUKHz9lifjlxB1oxhKfC1Tq21Z1uBWOeZ7bkog6 fD0jjmNBVdHcko4KRwnt+fLPDU3Ecz/cRXngORJV1wgotUg0FY3TdzD4avRP/dt1DGvl 0j+nU5oVKF+Hh0ls+VdS/X6iZ3A7pZd6Dk2n3cNL2srPYyWpgjgRGIHq3iyy0nUPvg0p ajGeWBAAkcUDQtxSOgoT8vcEFzJrYLW3rbWzvGuhXoFvx3A6gX7qU+SPKtAynzsX5OB4 B8fa37UbRH3DX8d5D+3VeGnsVjlajXnRdRQM7Qh+nnV8u6vIJStfJsbpRe+6iBotneQH /gcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=BjMIvwMhe+05gCpR1vootJbkdJsLGwnyFN20mtvD7GQ=; b=R/I7aTN0lzt0DuCBYzbUM9mz8YUuQQFYDTPwJKDU8gyGGr9TG5RnVhhBiCiBUfJ7yC JeBBQZI0nhWXCs/6fSQodcrBWvi09KnFQKs4sGzFZM1RFINNwkhR/RcPCryO57+m/3n5 e0wtG5YN8urrmveRWzJAhawbpWxDgE+mLSWaLDn9HVYA/RPYiB8gZuIHRwXeilLiDSE2 2MgbjMrO0pJtDBeuMCZZVeXV4+2SA+1MTfWBj/q3MBSGO0xsCs5tOxD/DKJuHkzcsvGc 7AyjoBXHdpFBKOucYcy8QKIzVU0eoWtZjIPeqDgXvX544x0FKbXYtnDTHfpJZkB4yzH7 Bj3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GgJXPFdNuj1ebwNFcWotupfdR3nVV5ssW3p09J+ZVJPaJ6YdJ8 HTD8oAZ/K+7uTfZsv5QD+Q2LTYOg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu/XfA7yXsT/qrfmJ49uMSOzcDfqF+Kgdf6/VfHPsNUpo46bEIFAN7mMa39u3AAwUlzAuy7Cg== X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd97:: with SMTP id t145-v6mr3980805itf.114.1521063494598; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com. [209.85.223.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d135sm2430819ioe.82.2018.03.14.14.38.13 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e7so6143207ioj.1 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.107.51.208 with SMTP id z199mr6858504ioz.112.1521063493196; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> <5AA85457.3010007@isdg.net> From: Brandon Long Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:38:01 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Hector Santos Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114537ac32053b056766311d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 14 Mar 2018 21:38:18 -0000 --001a114537ac32053b056766311d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:37 PM Brandon Long wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Hector Santos wrote: > >> >> >> >> One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC. Does DMARC >> >> still 'fail'? Yet the whole point of ARC is to create the >> >> possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this. >> > >> > My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox >> > provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC >> > falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not need to be a >> > spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain >> > publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making >> > demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local >> > policy a validator/mailbox provider implements. >> > >> >> If a domain publishes a "p=reject/quarantine" (restrictive policy), >> the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine >> failures. If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handles >> failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy." >> Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine. >> >> The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing >> "psuedo-standard" protocol logic? >> >> I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal) >> that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some" >> p=reject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at >> the moment. The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of >> what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC. >> > > I still object to this concept on the same basis as the last two times we > had this discussion. > > Brandon > --001a114537ac32053b056766311d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On= Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:37 PM Brandon Long <blong@google.com> wrote:



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 One would be a spec revision to deal with ARC.= =C2=A0 Does DMARC
>> still 'fail'?=C2=A0 Yet the whole point of ARC is to creat= e the
>> possibility of still getting delivered, in spite of this.
>
> My position on this is that the decision by a validator/mailbox
> provider to use ARC and accept mail that would otherwise fail DMARC > falls under the heading of "local policy". There does not ne= ed to be a
> spec revision to deal with ARC from this perspective. A sending domain=
> publishing a DMARC policy is expressing it's wishes, not making > demands (it cannot enforce). This is true with respect to any local > policy a validator/mailbox provider implements.
>

If a domain publishes a "p=3Dreject/quarantine" (restrictive poli= cy),
the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine
failures.=C2=A0 =C2=A0If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handle= s
failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy.&= quot;
=C2=A0 Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine.

The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing
"psuedo-standard" protocol logic?

I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal)
that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some"
p=3Dreject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at
the moment.=C2=A0 The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of<= br> what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC.

I still object to this concept on the same basis= as the last two times we had this discussion.

Bra= ndon=C2=A0
--001a114537ac32053b056766311d-- From nobody Wed Mar 14 15:02:34 2018 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 D210A126E01 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:02:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=cllVOm4U; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=IDjaNCvI 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 TshmdOkxh-M6 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntbbs.santronics.com (mail.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8249126CF9 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2754; t=1521064940; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=RDjgta+1aHZHeISXUtiZBA4QIW4=; b=cllVOm4UEmOiy1GRMcTtYYRPHIA/QfhJYUbPv9uxDi30DTJ3l/DStdjMH2+6n8 qdqPDWrABNw/KawVc4w+Lx1AZbnU3NGsR8xPldXBDMbe28uxaRyuOZt8HiXBD7Lk CY1axWG1NM0tRMXjbG9MGLGJlM/jepcPsp85B/RbGVfYc= Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:02:20 -0500 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 ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2343627407.1.3968; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:02:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2754; t=1521064581; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=kUPr47o WfBSvgNNW93fxsuEA4qsO6giC3yjqN98Aimw=; b=IDjaNCvI+8vrt5KBOa6o2u4 ZNLPhYq0FCYMXmVkJrzMNxJTyjPVZy9Tcj+CSrkAhRQNzzr0D/Ywb4FGkSz08NhB f3HAAn6BzHNkSYifolFMeM4UAkqXUMDtmg23fWpq/qP3cHpQ5EIru7n65LH3XFsp DwcAf8P0fDvzeEOyd4Kg= Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:56:21 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([99.121.5.8]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 2343487940.9.151144; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: <5AA99BEB.7050500@isdg.net> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:02:19 -0400 From: Hector Santos Organization: Santronics Software, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> <02a52325-47cc-e3c7-1d8a-b0a64b128447@americangreetings.com> <5AA85457.3010007@isdg.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 14 Mar 2018 22:02:33 -0000 On 3/14/2018 5:37 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM Hector Santos If a domain publishes a "p=reject/quarantine" (restrictive policy), > the published intent and expectation is to reject or quarantine > failures. If the receiver wishes to further relax how it handles > failures, that would be a specific local policy, not "general policy." > Overall, the protocol intent is to Reject/Quarantine. > > The ARC question is how does ARC change this existing > "psuedo-standard" protocol logic? > > I prefer an explicit DMARC extended tag (or a author domain ARC seal) > that publishes the domain intent to use ARC to relax "some" > p=reject/quarantine failure in some fashion which is not defined at > the moment. The preference is to remove/reduce receiver ambiguity of > what is to be expected when DKIM/DMARC is augmented with the ARC. > > > I still object to this concept on the same basis as the last two times > we had this discussion. > > Brandon Brandon, Quite possible you haven't been clear in your DKIM Policy Modeling engineering reasoning. The concept has been written across multiple RFCs since DKIM Policy Modeling architecture, including SPF. If a domain publishes a DNS-based Public Record policy, you SHOULD honor its wishes as defined by the protocol recommendations. You can do what you please with Local policy, you can even prepare your product in the market place (if any) to behave as you want. Other implementations can do the same product designs that follow closely with the specifications. That is what the system cooperatively competitive. Both SPF and DKIM POLICY docs have been very clear a,long these lines and its the #1 reason why we are still here after 10+ years trying to resolve same original "indirect" rejection issues, are we not? First it was SSP, then it was ASDP and now its these issues with DMARC. So if you backing off and are advocating that receivers should ignore or add a "Don't really Mean it" rejection semantic regarding Hard Fail Policies, with SPF or DMARC, then you need to change the specifications and make it more clear in the new specs. But I suspect a top marketing, security interest, the highest payoff, will continue to be to seek and support hard deterministic protocols. That doesn't stop us from working on new stuff that deal with the fuzzy non-deterministic classification decisions. We add some learning to it if you want. Just make it very clear in your DKIM ARC augmentation what you want. If you want ARC to change how DMARC words, then you have to say so in your specs. You just can't assume people will blindly ignore what is already in place. Thanks -- HLS From nobody Thu Mar 15 07:01:11 2018 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 EDE7F12AF83 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:09 -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=eudaemon.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 yUzzrUh3q6yp for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (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 AB77F129C70 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id r66so4625850ywh.10 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eudaemon.net; s=dkey; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=v89qtq4PQamv39cCbeV0fXwu6QE3DSeh7kyVZpzpmBc=; b=Ka1XS8rkLikWCLWxdhP4dVpAcH4HykDDAFzKuih7SKKHFG5mjHUdbfjzja85uhT+sB jt4L1tFRacT5p6wfnTtfVAtC5S2wL7tgOJ3S8ooVvOL60eYiC6utdXMV/QK5k6j00pFE SLvcXZ1UheCDlKaZ9pywXXrE96SIRPP1JfTfo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=v89qtq4PQamv39cCbeV0fXwu6QE3DSeh7kyVZpzpmBc=; b=LJRl8tBqjeAVVoK7bbpeQMXTiaTWb2DnupOtqbAWH6cgxOBFpBkQtGmpnZcICKWXXK AYdsCv9yT2a0mk0s0hQIS2i2vueB/3ZQJMewwUiDQm8Dkz+EMsIfXDSoHcpQJvRi7vM7 xh31upFbozILd4ZS2J1Jg0WyzpCWF4pGBraTrQKaRt8cy4gxSiqSEb0mhEqmC1tLl/9q ywgSEd3t6CuSewDA3IBk/uiK8GehI3PLbiNtOcaX48TKFBflptYzeVPoZcUPzCCS6sMC 0p81dnWr8G71n/vI6FkVm5JhFYmUTC4LWrPpGTLjrw0kYd+OZni3RzXYawSGmNG4Db4w Gj3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GXPiGzop7kthY7Qgl0MrMCSJHjmov0MeteyiJMhrcb+CTNPY6h nxlGQELcGPt2jiSatFF/YhZzIw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsD2lMBgxeb7o2lBCCExz9ngoPv2m0DwGQuj1vwCge+6+CDlth+fUwEFa2K5X9S3dt3itq6mw== X-Received: by 2002:a25:69ca:: with SMTP id e193-v6mr5865300ybc.493.1521122462575; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.18] (208-104-133-98.brvd.dsl.dyn.comporium.net. [208.104.133.98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p204sm1939171ywg.71.2018.03.15.07.01.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:01:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Draegen Message-Id: <5CCE3007-2EE9-4A35-9966-E1BCA50588E9@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C76A6483-30B1-4A42-9B37-0CC290830594" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:01:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Cc: dmarc To: Dave Crocker References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" (was: Re: Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 15 Mar 2018 14:01:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C76A6483-30B1-4A42-9B37-0CC290830594 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 13, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >> Phase III: >> Review and refinement of the DMARC specification >=20 > Is there technical work on the base specification that would improve = it? The bug tracker contains a few items around clarification, removing = ambiguity, correcting minor mistakes. Nothing major. I was expecting someone to come up with a new tag that defined a = mechanism for exception querying. EG, I have a piece of email that falls = under a DMARC record where the Domain Owner is telling me I can query = some resource to figure out if the identifier combination is OK. Aside = from hallway conversation, haven't seen anything like it yet. >> Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage >=20 > What will it take to complete this doc? Focus & cycles. The document is meant for future implementors. There has = been *some* leg work done to collect information. There was talk of = rechartering to remove this deliverable, but I hope that has been = addressed. =3D- Tim >=20 > One example would be a spec revision effort that targets = clarification, based on experience coding and deploying DMARC. >=20 >=20 > I'll also suggest that it would help allay public concerns about = DMARC to be able to have this document include experience-based text = about ARC usage; both discussing how to use it and how effective it is. >=20 > d/ --Apple-Mail=_C76A6483-30B1-4A42-9B37-0CC290830594 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On = Mar 13, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> = wrote:

  Phase III:
     Review and refinement of the = DMARC specification

Is there technical = work on the base specification that would improve it?

The bug = tracker contains a few items around clarification, removing ambiguity, = correcting minor mistakes. Nothing major.

I was expecting someone to come up with a new tag = that defined a mechanism for exception querying. EG, I have a piece of = email that falls under a DMARC record where the Domain Owner is telling = me I can query some resource to figure out if the identifier combination = is OK. Aside from hallway conversation, haven't seen anything like it = yet.

     Completion of Guide on DMARC = Usage

What will it take = to complete this doc?

Focus & = cycles. The document is meant for future implementors. There has been = *some* leg work done to collect information. There was talk of = rechartering to remove this deliverable, but I hope that has been = addressed.

=3D- Tim


    One example would be a = spec revision effort that targets clarification, based on experience = coding and deploying DMARC.


    I'll also suggest = that it would help allay public concerns about DMARC to be able to have = this document include experience-based text about ARC usage; both = discussing how to use it and how effective it is.

d/

= --Apple-Mail=_C76A6483-30B1-4A42-9B37-0CC290830594-- From nobody Thu Mar 15 08:02:35 2018 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 F3BC512D88F for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 FTgdMqOyxKs8 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 2960512E856 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g5so5939022oiy.8 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I8Cw9b4xI+cVhkLdf2XXXWP6i2tLw8BTPuWGHEuaJE4=; b=CKLu49KP72Qxvui2qCVNnfcT5qLJb2VDRrDBAI8NT8Yi9iT2vXDLX/LEpF24TmkA2J 92kZh1Nf2C0silwpw+9YOZPdgcjrRk1o9zwP7MrNOnq8ZZXHTemBaJzLnm/wO9fFYRSu NQ0jZPloX3ewN3GS47U9pbqgYyCrudEh0WAVIt0nWAlrMiLxzFuV8HCU+llQRnSnbAue EzHVZiMzetiDnrHV4/TJiYHFNGEWacLXy2gXfOiFwFGbg09aEofnqRypI8hnUEnm5iU7 MC4GIGhmZgDOej4XuJ9BNVa3p4wrlZmX8FoQ+mfiWy0xV6/iIWfMyam4YtWbXdXPKO12 EISA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I8Cw9b4xI+cVhkLdf2XXXWP6i2tLw8BTPuWGHEuaJE4=; b=JO4m4TXqRVA3qDdaROKNXw0+jdX4jnx9r3nOS4PIkzsbBXUKiFNrZS8V6FnGhxH+y+ QJQzTQg97YFCynw+OTjt8aS1ZCraws/p1dvHVvKJo2/aKCAMpI6cv37LmCs7CTN04wcE RZk/AalNvqpOLThs1TDXeKTZoJA/k4HuwLVUWjO7drrCloI8G/kYb3Id+lD5mf1SfqwD W4ZHEZLLLAwI4F2NY4bnGZZg9kZ6T17kfDFvEgl1XoC1dayKCua2wun3HSKEccGOruwl 4nPzLlJEBI6/EHGCNhN5H3/AWfG5UT+KQ2Xe5ecOHCxIJxxi3gntWSHOOs5QpPjewpNH IQiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Gy+uk6tLJp9uUqN722YDI99QB0RWUNCEW61OBRtTRoVrTFZWuS Mquw4WG5YKjX3+GfFKaTJ+WZzltS X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvCDr5OMzGX0TLO8XunXRKmJ163kwuT812Yyq9v//wIUP+na/RdYAefrWfm3xJ1HrmDXM1eQA== X-Received: by 10.202.86.88 with SMTP id k85mr5647162oib.158.1521126142597; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:870:edb1:41c5:f240:b6d5? ([2600:1700:a3a0:870:edb1:41c5:f240:b6d5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r185sm2824035oie.16.2018.03.15.08.02.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Tim Draegen Cc: dmarc References: <7b5a8d01-564e-0601-77f3-571bacfa1542@gmail.com> <5CCE3007-2EE9-4A35-9966-E1BCA50588E9@eudaemon.net> From: Dave Crocker Message-ID: <6711da87-727b-a24d-26c1-84e30a3bc223@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:02:13 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5CCE3007-2EE9-4A35-9966-E1BCA50588E9@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "next steps?" X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 15 Mar 2018 15:02:27 -0000 On 3/15/2018 7:01 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > On Mar 13, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Dave Crocker > wrote: >> >>>   Phase III: >>>      Review and refinement of the DMARC specification >> >> Is there technical work on the base specification that would improve it? > > The bug tracker contains a few items around clarification, removing > ambiguity, correcting minor mistakes. Nothing major. > > I was expecting someone to come up with a new tag that defined a > mechanism for exception querying. EG, I have a piece of email that falls > under a DMARC record where the Domain Owner is telling me I can query > some resource to figure out if the identifier combination is OK. Aside > from hallway conversation, haven't seen anything like it yet. Hmmm. Could you describe this in a bit more detail? Not an actual spec, but to give more of a sense of what it could do and why it would be helpful (ie, what current problem it alleviates)? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Mar 15 10:19:31 2018 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 193FC129C5D for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 LuzF8SByXTRj for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 8F03B12D7F0 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a22-v6so11332231lfg.9 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=F6eVF1FxzUuLcZD0RHcBABcfPfcQ97NDHjwSLXkLnmE=; b=BN4IEZJsjIaRW70HZBy2eVd0xyvZ22vW4YiQS/oA4HWcu5jtqN0U/r0n0Lmj1EcbVs k7FuN1CxkwXW/8w+aX6Cu1pVw+5eO7/F0ybKECsI09fTLfEbuE6yeOYAqCf+1NSOHL1U vNxDXRqp4cyjApJvw2LgjxLq8GOJHLBPSu1AA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F6eVF1FxzUuLcZD0RHcBABcfPfcQ97NDHjwSLXkLnmE=; b=PxaLzviSF0MYacslNeVO1SBS7UuUQcimJp6qjbQY8QdDebT4gnx7rTXfPCEoL2dSkf n6AIIIIVzCsA1utQ0wzNoKMKrS95qLFdWIa5fOUgIqPOuGVrS6X6qWAeQLYXCPAfNNyr hOh07kErkYo3vR23b1pa2rQ8kBFcISTnETc7jAMsvZqTndGi+bk6Z8dplV2WZv39kWxs a/rM9z9eGTY88UtbFQ5Q6VlcIJXCdTIrs9DddtkUV8JL7/tGUSOdyzOe0PG2FWV0VlGs YUoNlP8BvjGEbxgZbz9iCoUwmaMl3+sX60erP6mc9QL5aou49swhcJi61KzCG8cD0JRj v+8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HogKWWtm93j2qGjefzbhJPEXjH/qRaX6SdNJ2dTkjqsr0wV28k PBrRU6E6R8pXn7Ezt0gG4Uk8g+YUWZn/oqbFoUPK4Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvhvSYGPBTT3AOkBC4oi+bSZk0EKeMuZY6rwmlapRfZL8tByt06lfoAcAD1QbVGdCN1qPkFTDN5TnfKYGqaTio= X-Received: by 2002:a19:97d0:: with SMTP id z199-v6mr6609383lfd.94.1521134364636; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:19:23 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: E9Mj66D4nveAOxCIKsj0TRs-qJ4 Message-ID: To: Barry Leiba Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000075cb91056776b15a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 15 Mar 2018 17:19:29 -0000 --00000000000075cb91056776b15a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Two more items for discussion (coming from a chat that I had with some of the NCSC folks today): 1. Recommendations for protecting against abuse of last-level public domains (such as gov.uk) and first-level NXDOMAIN org domains ( junk.gov.uk) 2. Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic levels --Kurt On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I have uploaded a preliminary session agenda here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc > > If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to > add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > --00000000000075cb91056776b15a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Two more items for discussion (coming from a chat that I h= ad with some of the NCSC folks today):
  1. Recommendations for prot= ecting against abuse of last-level public domains (such as gov.uk) and first-level NXDOMAIN org domains (junk.gov.uk)
  2. Creating a diagnostic report that = would have some additional information (such as sending address) and URLs w= ithout going quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the a= ggregate and forensic levels
--Kurt

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 1= :02 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
I have uploaded a preliminary session agen= da here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-dmarc

If anyone has adjustments to propose, including any specific items to
add to the "next steps" discussion, please post here.

Barry

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

--00000000000075cb91056776b15a-- From nobody Thu Mar 15 10:40:28 2018 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 484AA12EA81 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:25 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=officerakuten.onmicrosoft.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 OX3jCMlCeTjN for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-hk2apc01on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.124.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A69012DA00 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=OFFICERAKUTEN.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rakuten-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=voDbbEpFgL7emtAu00e56A4pgL9VR4YfzW25sSiQS1E=; b=kMKJzJSUaASP9b1vGm1jJkYN3+5Z7f1WbJ9Pd91LR02h94AFYFikNPR3n3Izr5UH9z6v2SFSyJJvXZ8bMQ2vLffNVeOAfnarBm/IByY7St0nmfiBXYoQF+ObJCQ8UoCToXGPdvO9nRdqJWJTk3+UDCw07bKHT3Xb9sSnADLb0Tk= Received: from HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.161.180.22) by HKXPR03MB0710.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.161.180.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.588.7; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:39:47 +0000 Received: from HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4db2:a17:fa32:d06]) by HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4db2:a17:fa32:d06%7]) with mapi id 15.20.0588.013; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:39:47 +0000 From: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" To: Hector Santos , Satoru Kanno , "dmarc@ietf.org" CC: Takehito Akagiri , "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 Thread-Index: AQHTte1NZwluylSpg0ekDSDbqtpQJaPIeXKAgAkXENA= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:39:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> In-Reply-To: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [133.237.7.68] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HKXPR03MB0710; 20: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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6efcf285-2965-4426-93cd-08d58a9bbf32 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HKXPR03MB0710: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(83146419253472); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3231221)(2017060910165)(944501270)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201703011903075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; x-forefront-prvs: 0612E553B4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7966004)(39380400002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(305945005)(106356001)(102836004)(2900100001)(316002)(97736004)(54906003)(8936002)(33656002)(110136005)(99286004)(74316002)(59450400001)(508600001)(7736002)(186003)(6506007)(8676002)(53546011)(6246003)(2501003)(107886003)(81166006)(81156014)(66066001)(7696005)(6436002)(6346003)(5250100002)(4326008)(55016002)(26005)(14454004)(229853002)(52230400001)(3660700001)(5660300001)(3846002)(345774005)(966005)(45080400002)(86362001)(6116002)(105586002)(9686003)(2906002)(25786009)(2950100002)(6306002)(3280700002)(53936002)(68736007)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; H:HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: rakuten.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=genki.yasutaka@rakuten.com; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: iepb5K54yhoEDW83zPbLdd1VCtp8mD+VQ5VtuCzP04yR4j4xSZz9aHzrSk/tBHrb8N+fPAyFKeqyfMemO3npNhDLrBqFVO6JiO9yvqOVhW+6ZrvZcCeItvAFq3ADj7Qhr3xU4zsgcWE0+Nb6LtjRruOBr7Fj04F25hD7E5iP97WnZKb1U8lg5ZzvOuTDWmPNzhdy+md7+Hyy/hNhlrUJG1co6b9ll1GG5/Oki7rPcFU2x4mcbIJVw4TklRC1t7YZIS9lEO/0RdoX+ktauFEm7BhOQFjGzMmSUoDDIRvgzk6JInJzhQhXFEmaTFQ1XDbPH0YgzgVEIA6g8/CaRWtscA== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: rakuten.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6efcf285-2965-4426-93cd-08d58a9bbf32 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2018 17:39:47.3608 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 53a8b0d9-d900-48cc-9d7e-5935dc8d5b17 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HKXPR03MB0710 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 15 Mar 2018 17:40:27 -0000 SGkgSGVjdG9yLA0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudC4NCg0KWW91IGtub3csIHdl J3ZlIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uIGVtYWlscyB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBiZSBtYXJrZWQg YXMgImRtYXJjPXBhc3MiIGluIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQsIGJ1dCB3ZSdkIG5vdCBhbG1vc3QgYXdhcmUg b2YgdGhlIG9wcG9zaXRlIHBvaW50IHNvIGZhci4gSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGxpc3RlbiB0byB5 b3VyIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIHNsb3dseS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkdlbmtpDQoNCi0tLQ0KR2Vua2kg WUFTVVRBS0EgPGdlbmtpLnlhc3V0YWthQHJha3V0ZW4uY29tPg0KUmFrdXRlbiwgSW5jLg0KDQot LS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogSGVjdG9yIFNhbnRvcyBbbWFpbHRvOmhz YW50b3NAaXNkZy5uZXRdIA0KU2VudDogU2F0dXJkYXksIE1hcmNoIDEwLCAyMDE4IDc6MDUgQU0N ClRvOiBTYXRvcnUgS2Fubm8gPGthbm5vQGxlcGlkdW0uY28uanA+OyBkbWFyY0BpZXRmLm9yZw0K Q2M6IFRha2VoaXRvIEFrYWdpcmkgPGFrYWdpcmlAcmVndW1pLm5ldD47IFlhc3V0YWthLCBHZW5r aSB8IERraW0gfCBPUFMgPGdlbmtpLnlhc3V0YWthQHJha3V0ZW4uY29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IFtkbWFyYy1pZXRmXSBbUmVxdWVzdF0gUHJlc2VudGF0aW9uIGluIElFVEYxMDENCg0KT24gMy83 LzIwMTggMzoyMSBBTSwgU2F0b3J1IEthbm5vIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBEZWFyIERNQVJDIFdHIENoYWly cywNCj4NCj4gSSdtIHNlbmRpbmcgdG8geW91IG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBHZW5raSBZYXN1dGFrYS1z YW4uDQo+DQo+IEFzIEkgYXNrZWQgeW91IGxhc3QgTm92ZW1iZXIsIHdlIGFyZSBwcmVwYXJpbmcg Zm9yIHRoZSBuZXh0IHRyYWNrLCANCj4gd2l0aCB0aGUgaW50ZW50aW9uIG9mIG5vdCBvbmx5IHJl dmlld2luZyB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBidXQgYWxzbyANCj4gaW1wbGVtZW50aW5nIGZvciB2ZXJpZmlj YXRpb24gb2YgdkRNQVJDLiBJZiBwb3NzaWJsZSwgSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gDQo+IGRpc2N1c3MgdGhp cyBhdCBJRVRGIDEwMS4NCj4NCj4gW0RldGFpbHNdDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0N Cj4gLSBXaGF0IEkgd2FudCB0byB0YWxrPw0KPiAgICBEcmFmdCBPdmVydmlldyBhbmQgSW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24gb2YgdkRNQVJDDQo+DQo+IC0gVGltZSByZXF1aXJlZA0KPiAgICAxMCBtaW51dGVz ICgqZXZlbiBmb3IgNSBtaW51dGVzLCBpZiB5b3VyIHNjaGVkdWxlIGlzIHRvbyBidXN5IHRvIA0K PiBhZGp1c3QuKQ0KPg0KPiAtIEludGVybmV0IERyYWZ0DQo+ICAgICANCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRh dHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtYWthZ2lyaS1kbWFyYy12aXJ0dWFsLXZlcmlmaWNh dA0KPiBpb24vDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4NCj4gVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5 b3VyIGNvb3BlcmF0aW9uIGFuZCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nLg0KDQorMSB0byBkaXNjdXNzaW5nIHRo aXMgdGhlIGNvbmNlcHQuICBPdmVyYWxsLCBJIHRoaW5rICJkZWZhdWx0IiANCnByb3RvY29sIGNv bnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIHNob3VsZCBiZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBhcyBwYXJ0IG9mIGEgRE1BUkMgUHJvcG9z ZWQgU3RhbmRhcmQgZWZmb3J0Lg0KDQpJbnRlcmVzdGluZyBub3RlIHN0YXRlZCBieSB0aGlzIGRy YWZ0Og0KDQogICAgTWljcm9zb2Z0IE9mZmljZTM2NSBlbXBsb3lzIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRlY2huaXF1 ZSBhcyBvbmUgbWVudGlvbmVkIGluDQogICAgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCAoW0Jlc3RHdWVzc1Bhc3NdKS4g IFRoZXkgYXBwZW5kICJkbWFyYz1iZXN0Z3Vlc3NwYXNzIiB0bw0KICAgIHRoZSBBdXRoZW50aWNh dGlvbi1SZXN1bHRzIHRvIGluZGljYXRlIHRoZSBhdXRoZW50aWNpdHkgb2YgcmVjZWl2ZWQNCiAg ICBlbWFpbHMgdG8gcmVjZWl2aW5nIE1VQXMuDQoNCldoeSBjYW4ndCB0aGVyZSBiZSBhICJkbWFy Yz1iZXN0Z3Vlc3NmYWlsPyINCg0KSWYgdGhlIEF1dGhvciBEb21haW4gKDUzMjIuRnJvbSkgaGFz IG5vIERNQVJDIHJlY29yZCwgYnV0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgbWF0Y2hpbmcgZG9tYWluIFNQRiByZWNv cmQgd2l0aCBhIEhBUkRGQUlMIHBvbGljeSwgd2hlbiBhIG1lc3NhZ2UgZmFpbHMgZHVlIHRvIFNQ Riwgc29tZSBzeXN0ZW1zIHdpbGwgcmVqZWN0IGF0IFNNVFAgYmVmb3JlIG9yIGF0IERBVEEgb3Ig YWNjZXB0IGFuZCBxdWFyYW50aW5lIHRoZSBTUEYgZmFpbGVkIG1lc3NhZ2UuIFdpdGggdGhlIGZv cm1lciwgdGhpcyBjb25jZXB0IGRvZXMndCBhcHBseSBzaW5jZSB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBBUiByZWNv cmQgZm9yIHRoaXMgcmVzdWx0LiBXaXRoIHRoZSBsYXR0ZXIsIHRoZSByZXN1bHQgImRtYXJjPWJl c3RndWVzc2ZhaWwiIHdvdWxkIGJldHRlciBtYXRjaCB3aGF0IFNQRiBleGNsdXNpdmVseSBwcm9k dWNlZCAtIGEgZmFpbGVkIGNvbmRpdGlvbi4NCg0KSSBhY3R1YWxseSBmb3VuZCB0aGlzIHRvIGJl IGEgaGlnaCB0cnVlIGNvbmRpdGlvbjoNCg0KICAgIElmIGEgZG9tYWluIGhhcyBhbiBleGNsdXNp dmUsIHJlc3RyaWN0ZWQgU1BGIHJlY29yZCAoSEFSREZBSUwpLCB0aGUgb2Rkcw0KICAgIGFyZSB2 ZXJ5IGhpZ2ggdGhhdCB0aGUgc2FtZSBvciBlcXVhbCBzcG9vZiBkZXRlY3Rpb25zIChmYWlsdXJl cykgd291bGQNCiAgICByZXN1bHQgaWYgdGhlIGRvbWFpbiBvbmx5IGhhZCBhIGV4Y2x1c2l2ZSwg cmVzdHJpY3RlZCBES0lNIFBvbGljeQ0KICAgIG1vZGVsIChBRFNQLCBETUFSQykgcmVjb3JkIGFu ZCBub3QgYSBTUEYgcmVjb3JkLg0KDQoNCi0tDQpITFMNCg0KDQo= From nobody Thu Mar 15 10:40:34 2018 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 6033F12DA06 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=officerakuten.onmicrosoft.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 5ELI1v1lMsS7 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-hk2apc01on0102.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.124.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2DF912DA13 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:40:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=OFFICERAKUTEN.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rakuten-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=aLRxdGfjQDxHQp7D+HQN612Brj3ZJgQuhOfMYSr1DDw=; b=ibQzKelMKkC18k7QHz8JKduve2hD1GW7LiTaw8UpfaFyJyJkAbG7x61hBizbTHcZCrh7b9o7pDREjItbyZnqAh4iWbgj85GVjtNbBVs+eZAhomXheT7qg4m2lJ9goREjGSRM1Zpbz8ZnOlAOazMJmZ6M/89OuxRUiWQ34Ctk9YM= Received: from HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.161.180.22) by HKXPR03MB0710.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.161.180.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.588.7; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:40:16 +0000 Received: from HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4db2:a17:fa32:d06]) by HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4db2:a17:fa32:d06%7]) with mapi id 15.20.0588.013; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:40:16 +0000 From: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" To: Stan Kalisch , Satoru Kanno CC: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Takehito Akagiri , "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 Thread-Index: AQHTte1NZwluylSpg0ekDSDbqtpQJaPIzbUAgAjG7kA= Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:40:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4587FC3F-59EC-45C4-B9AF-ACBDCEBCF65B@glyphein.mailforce.net> In-Reply-To: <4587FC3F-59EC-45C4-B9AF-ACBDCEBCF65B@glyphein.mailforce.net> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [133.237.7.68] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HKXPR03MB0710; 7:6Pt2gz14OJpcPOuX89hj/4qCRSphgIFg6WYytuaMhM6Chgn6XHW5ZIGCbSOcWfNASsyhrp65EVR3KPTRmoILQs8KJWG81iegori5+RVLCtLqCWMm0Png/hE3/2RZ4BVsgFO2eUKdRXLTmCgW5ysqRzYYtlrw17oY0UqMQG2qyvBvZLPitcSmf/sxEyFLIzGE8YVmiFTJPE3sXxlujNTawwAoEZnLYjV8AVkJttJfyvHo8LS1IVS3QaSXox8u9BlZ; 20: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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1496f90b-9b05-4627-ec60-08d58a9bd043 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HKXPR03MB0710: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(20558992708506)(120809045254105)(83146419253472)(21748063052155); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3231221)(944501270)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201703011903075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; x-forefront-prvs: 0612E553B4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7966004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(39380400002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(3660700001)(229853002)(345774005)(966005)(3846002)(5660300001)(6346003)(6436002)(26005)(55016002)(14454004)(5250100002)(4326008)(606006)(236005)(53936002)(3280700002)(54896002)(76176011)(68736007)(6306002)(6116002)(105586002)(86362001)(2950100002)(25786009)(2906002)(9686003)(99286004)(33656002)(54906003)(8936002)(110136005)(59450400001)(74316002)(102836004)(2900100001)(106356001)(97736004)(316002)(81166006)(81156014)(107886003)(7696005)(66066001)(508600001)(7736002)(186003)(6246003)(53546011)(6506007)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HKXPR03MB0710; H:HKXPR03MB0677.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: rakuten.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=genki.yasutaka@rakuten.com; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: iVX9ATLqyrtCfzNXBdodXVCzy6DaImlRWqODMXzK/WSVjJvh2/MUuO5Nh99PDy0fWMHZ84lnX2NYNxgldyZ3wExc0t1kEPAokBSQ15YkvjZhoe3BqDZiojS1fOEv+rBwgXz6PPAnYoOQVhgn0GUBJrT1ImZg1RaPnPt+Ivj7iy/gADo7G0NCfgcm58k0x9JbdlnBaGJ4LJRpUZhLnDL1ITbiI2A8sPIa4t7/w+SeL+Bsf3oTDYGY11iykFKKa3llbaPOzhrjN6tfhXHnQ9yK2TqwBCZJ+QGgZH9GUM5e8uOMZV2rOs3yw8vmElVAGz97fcOXU/UCz2aE9pvbTvC9yw== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HKXPR03MB0677FDB47E0E6B803BDC413186D00HKXPR03MB0677apcp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: rakuten.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1496f90b-9b05-4627-ec60-08d58a9bd043 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Mar 2018 17:40:16.0088 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 53a8b0d9-d900-48cc-9d7e-5935dc8d5b17 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HKXPR03MB0710 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 15 Mar 2018 17:40:33 -0000 --_000_HKXPR03MB0677FDB47E0E6B803BDC413186D00HKXPR03MB0677apcp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgU2F0YW4NCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnQuDQoNClRoZSBmaXJzdCBvbmUg aXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIG1vcmUgbmVnYXRpdmUgaW1wYWN0cywgYnV0IGJh c2ljYWxseSB0aGlzIG1lY2hhbmlzbSB3aWxsIGJlIHdlbGwgYmVjYXN1ZSB0aGlzIHN1cHBvcnRz IG9ubHkgZW1haWxzIHdoaWNoIHdvdWxkIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGJlICJkbWFyYz1wYXNzIiwgSSB0 aGluay4NCg0KVGhlIHNlY29uZCBpcyB0aGF0DQoNCj4gVGhlIHNlY29uZCBvcHRpb24sIGluIHBy YWN0aWNlLCByZXN1bHRzIGluIGJ1bGssIHVuc29saWNpdGVkIGVtYWlsLg0KDQpJ4oCZbSBvbiB0 aGUgc2FtZSBwYWdlLiBXZSBsaXN0ZWQgdGhpcyBpbiBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHBvaW50cywgYnV0IHRo YXQgbWF5IGJlIGEgdHJpdmlhbCBzb2x1dGlvbi4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkdlbmtpDQoNCg0KDQot LS0NCg0KR2Vua2kgWUFTVVRBS0EgPGdlbmtpLnlhc3V0YWthQHJha3V0ZW4uY29tPg0KUmFrdXRl biwgSW5jLg0KDQpGcm9tOiBTdGFuIEthbGlzY2ggW21haWx0bzpzdGFuQGdseXBoZWluLm1haWxm b3JjZS5uZXRdDQpTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgTWFyY2ggMTAsIDIwMTggMTI6MDYgUE0NClRvOiBT YXRvcnUgS2Fubm8gPGthbm5vQGxlcGlkdW0uY28uanA+DQpDYzogZG1hcmNAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IFRh a2VoaXRvIEFrYWdpcmkgPGFrYWdpcmlAcmVndW1pLm5ldD47IFlhc3V0YWthLCBHZW5raSB8IERr aW0gfCBPUFMgPGdlbmtpLnlhc3V0YWthQHJha3V0ZW4uY29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtkbWFy Yy1pZXRmXSBbUmVxdWVzdF0gUHJlc2VudGF0aW9uIGluIElFVEYxMDENCg0KSGkgU2F0b3J1LA0K DQpPbiBNYXIgNywgMjAxOCwgYXQgMzoyMSBBTSwgU2F0b3J1IEthbm5vIDxrYW5ub0BsZXBpZHVt LmNvLmpwPG1haWx0bzprYW5ub0BsZXBpZHVtLmNvLmpwPj4gd3JvdGU6DQpEZWFyIERNQVJDIFdH IENoYWlycywNCg0KSSdtIHNlbmRpbmcgdG8geW91IG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBHZW5raSBZYXN1dGFr YS1zYW4uDQoNCkFzIEkgYXNrZWQgeW91IGxhc3QgTm92ZW1iZXIsIHdlIGFyZSBwcmVwYXJpbmcg Zm9yIHRoZSBuZXh0IHRyYWNrLA0Kd2l0aCB0aGUgaW50ZW50aW9uIG9mIG5vdCBvbmx5IHJldmll d2luZyB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBidXQgYWxzbw0KaW1wbGVtZW50aW5nIGZvciB2ZXJpZmljYXRpb24g b2YgdkRNQVJDLiBJZiBwb3NzaWJsZSwgSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8NCmRpc2N1c3MgdGhpcyBhdCBJRVRG IDEwMS4NCg0KW0RldGFpbHNdDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQotIFdoYXQgSSB3YW50 IHRvIHRhbGs/DQogRHJhZnQgT3ZlcnZpZXcgYW5kIEltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG9mIHZETUFSQw0K DQotIFRpbWUgcmVxdWlyZWQNCiAxMCBtaW51dGVzICgqZXZlbiBmb3IgNSBtaW51dGVzLCBpZiB5 b3VyIHNjaGVkdWxlIGlzIHRvbyBidXN5IHRvIGFkanVzdC4pDQoNCi0gSW50ZXJuZXQgRHJhZnQN CiAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtYWthZ2lyaS1kbWFyYy12 aXJ0dWFsLXZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbi8NCg0KSSd2ZSBvbmx5IGJlZW4gYWJsZSB0byBnaXZlIHRoaXMg ZHJhZnQgYSBicmllZiBpbml0aWFsIGxvb2ssIGJ1dCBJIGRvIGhhdmUgY29tbWVudHMgcmVnYXJk aW5nIHR3byBpc3N1ZXMuDQoNCg0KRmlyc3QsIHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGlzIHRleHQ6DQoNCg0KDQoi SW4gdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgd2UgcHJvcG9zZSB0byBleHBsaWNpdGx5IG1hcmsgZW1haWxzIHdoaWNo IGFyZQ0KDQpwb3RlbnRpYWxseSAiZG1hcmM9cGFzcyIsIGJ1dCBhcmUgbm90IG1hcmtlZCBhcyBz dWNoIHZpYSByZWd1bGFyIERNQVJDIHZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbiAoTm9uZSgyKSksIGFzICJkbWFyYz1w YXNzIi4iDQoNCg0KV2hhdCBjb3VsZCBoYXBwZW4gYXMgdGhlIHJlc3VsdCBvZiB0aGlzIGJlaGF2 aW9yLCBpbiB0aGUgY2FzZXMgb2YgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBvciBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzLCBvbmUgY291 bGQgZW5kIHVwIHdpdGggb25lIEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uLVJlc3VsdHMgaGVhZGVyIHdoaWNoIGNv bnRhaW5zLCAiZG1hcmM9cGFzcyIsIGJ1dCBhbm90aGVyIHdoaWNoIGNvbnRhaW5zLCAiZG1hcmM9 bm9uZSIuICBXaGljaCBiaXphcnJlbHksIGluIHRoaXMga2luZCBvZiBzY2VuYXJpbywgYnlwYXNz ZXMgdGhlIG1haWxpbmctbGlzdCBwcm9ibGVtIERNQVJDIHByZXNlbnRseSBzdWZmZXJzIGZyb20s IGJ1dCwgd2VsbCwgYXJndWFibHkgZnVydGhlciBjb25mdXNlcyB0aGUgaXNzdWUsIGFuZCBjYWxs cyBpbnRvIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoZSBkcmFmdCdzIGFzc2VydGlvbiB0aGF0ICJzaW1wbHkgdXRpbGl6 aW5nDQoNCiJkbWFyYz1wYXNzIiBtYWtlcyBpdCBlYXNpZXIgdG8gbGV2ZXJhZ2UgdGhlIGZpZWxk Li4uZm9yIGVuZCB1c2VycyB3aXRob3V0IGVub3VnaCBleHBlcnRpc2UuLi4iICAoSSBzdXBwb3Nl IHlvdSBjb3VsZCBzdGlsbCBtYWtlIHRoYXQgYXJndW1lbnQgaWYgdGhlIGVuZCB1c2VyIGlzIHZp ZXdpbmcgdGhlICJETUFSQy1pc2giIHJlc3VsdCB2aWEgYSBVSSBsaWtlLCBzYXksIEdNYWlsJ3Ms IGFuZCB0aGF0IFVJIHByZXNlbnRzIHNvbWUga2luZCBvZiBjYWxpYnJhdGVkIHJlc3VsdC4pDQoN Cg0KU2Vjb25kLCByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhpcyB0ZXh0Og0KDQoNCiJUaGVyZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBkaWZm ZXJpbmcgb3BpbmlvbnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIERNQVJDIHJlcG9ydHMuICBPbmUgaXMgdGhlIG9waW5p b24gdGhhdCByZXBvcnRzIHdpdGhvdXQgZXhwbGljaXRseSBwdWJsaXNoZWQgRE1BUkMgcmVjb3Jk cyBhcmUgaGFybWZ1bCwgd2hpbGUgYW5vdGhlciBvbmUgaXMgdGhhdCB3aXRob3V0IHJlcG9ydHMs IHZpcnR1YWwgRE1BUkMgdmVyaWZpY2F0aW9uIGNhbiBub3QgYmUgY2FsbGVkIERNQVJDLiAgQ3Vy cmVudGx5LCB3ZSBhcmUgc2lkaW5nIHdpdGggdGhlIGZpcnN0IG9waW5pb24gaW4gdGhpcyBkcmFm dC4iDQoNCg0KSSBkb24ndCBzZWUgaG93IHlvdSBoYXZlIGEgY2hvaWNlLiAgVGhlIHNlY29uZCBv cHRpb24sIGluIHByYWN0aWNlLCByZXN1bHRzIGluIGJ1bGssIHVuc29saWNpdGVkIGVtYWlsLg0K DQoNCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpTdGFuDQo= --_000_HKXPR03MB0677FDB47E0E6B803BDC413186D00HKXPR03MB0677apcp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 Iu+8re+8syDjgrTjgrfjg4Pjgq8iOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA5IDcgMiA1IDggMiA0O30N CkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0 IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJZdSBHb3RoaWMi Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwO30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiLvvK3vvLMg77yw44K044K344OD44KvIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDExIDYgMCA3IDIgNSA4IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJcQO+8re+8 syDjgrTjgrfjg4Pjgq8iOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA5IDcgMiA1IDggMiA0O30NCkBmb250 LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlxA77yt77yzIO+8sOOCtOOCt+ODg+OCryI7DQoJcGFub3Nl LTE6MiAxMSA2IDAgNyAyIDUgOCAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpVSUNU Rm9udFRleHRTdHlsZUJvZHk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMDt9DQpAZm9u dC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJcQFl1IEdvdGhpYyI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA0IDAg MCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5N c29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBtbTsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4w MDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToi77yt77yzIO+8sOOCtOOC t+ODg+OCryI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3Jp dHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlz aXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7 DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcC5Nc29QbGFp blRleHQsIGxpLk1zb1BsYWluVGV4dCwgZGl2Lk1zb1BsYWluVGV4dA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJp b3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IlBsYWluIFRleHQgQ2hhciI7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjBt bTsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiWXUgR290aGljIjt9DQpwcmUNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1z dHlsZS1saW5rOiJIVE1MIFByZWZvcm1hdHRlZCBDaGFyIjsNCgltYXJnaW46MG1tOw0KCW1hcmdp bi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiLvvK3v vLMg44K044K344OD44KvIjt9DQpwLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGxpLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3Jh cGgsIGRpdi5Nc29MaXN0UGFyYWdyYXBoDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTozNDsNCgltYXJn aW4tdG9wOjBtbTsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MG1tOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MG1tOw0KCW1h cmdpbi1sZWZ0OjQyLjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJbXNvLXBhcmEtbWFy Z2luLXRvcDowbW07DQoJbXNvLXBhcmEtbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBtbTsNCgltc28tcGFyYS1tYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOjBtbTsNCgltc28tcGFyYS1tYXJnaW4tbGVmdDo0LjBnZDsNCgltc28tcGFyYS1t YXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToi 77yt77yzIO+8sOOCtOOCt+ODg+OCryI7fQ0KcC5tc29ub3JtYWwwLCBsaS5tc29ub3JtYWwwLCBk aXYubXNvbm9ybWFsMA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTptc29ub3JtYWw7DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10 b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBtbTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6 YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowbW07DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWls eToi77yt77yzIO+8sOOCtOOCt+ODg+OCryI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5IVE1MUHJlZm9ybWF0dGVkQ2hhcg0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZToiSFRNTCBQcmVmb3JtYXR0ZWQgQ2hhciI7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLXBy aW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1zdHlsZS1saW5rOiJIVE1MIFByZWZvcm1hdHRlZCI7DQoJZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUyMA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlw ZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7DQoJY29sb3I6d2lu ZG93dGV4dDt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUyMQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1j b21wb3NlOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0 ZXh0O30NCnNwYW4uUGxhaW5UZXh0Q2hhcg0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZToiUGxhaW4gVGV4dCBD aGFyIjsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IlBsYWluIFRl eHQiOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJZdSBHb3RoaWMiO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1z dHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNl Y3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo5OS4yNXB0IDMwLjBtbSAz MC4wbW0gMzAuMG1tO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0K LS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpl eHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiPg0KPHY6dGV4dGJveCBpbnNldD0iNS44NXB0LC43cHQs NS44NXB0LC43cHQiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cz48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0t W2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlk bWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2Vu ZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz0iSkEiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJwdXJw bGUiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxz cGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5IaSBTYXRhbjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJF Ti1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVv dDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+VGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtB cmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5UaGUgZmlyc3Qgb25lIGlzIHRoYXQgd2UgbmVlZCB0byBj b25zaWRlciBtb3JlIG5lZ2F0aXZlIGltcGFjdHMsIGJ1dCBiYXNpY2FsbHkgdGhpcyBtZWNoYW5p c20gd2lsbCBiZSB3ZWxsIGJlY2FzdWUgdGhpcyBzdXBwb3J0cyBvbmx5IGVtYWlscyB3aGljaCB3 b3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseQ0KIGJlICZxdW90O2RtYXJjPXBhc3MmcXVvdDssIEkgdGhpbmsuPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7 LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5UaGUgc2Vjb25kIGlzIHRoYXQ8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDss c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZndDsgVGhlIHNlY29uZCBvcHRpb24s IGluIHByYWN0aWNlLCByZXN1bHRzIGluIGJ1bGssIHVuc29saWNpdGVkIGVtYWlsLjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5z LXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+SeKAmW0gb24gdGhlIHNhbWUgcGFnZS4gV2Ug bGlzdGVkIHRoaXMgaW4gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBwb2ludHMsIGJ1dCB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSBhIHRyaXZp YWwgc29sdXRpb24uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5SZWdhcmRz LDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9 IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZx dW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5HZW5raTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29QbGFpblRleHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb1BsYWluVGV4dCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtBcmlhbCZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4tLS08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvUGxhaW5UZXh0Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkdlbmtpIFlBU1VUQUtBICZsdDtn ZW5raS55YXN1dGFrYUByYWt1dGVuLmNvbSZndDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4w cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+UmFrdXRlbiwgSW5j Ljwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7QXJpYWwmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0FyaWFsJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxvOnA+ Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTti b3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNFMUUxRTEgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwbW0gMG1tIDBtbSI+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5G cm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+IFN0YW4gS2FsaXNj aCBbbWFpbHRvOnN0YW5AZ2x5cGhlaW4ubWFpbGZvcmNlLm5ldF0NCjxicj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9i PiBTYXR1cmRheSwgTWFyY2ggMTAsIDIwMTggMTI6MDYgUE08YnI+DQo8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IFNhdG9y dSBLYW5ubyAmbHQ7a2Fubm9AbGVwaWR1bS5jby5qcCZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IGRtYXJj QGlldGYub3JnOyBUYWtlaGl0byBBa2FnaXJpICZsdDtha2FnaXJpQHJlZ3VtaS5uZXQmZ3Q7OyBZ YXN1dGFrYSwgR2Vua2kgfCBEa2ltIHwgT1BTICZsdDtnZW5raS55YXN1dGFrYUByYWt1dGVuLmNv bSZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IFtkbWFyYy1pZXRmXSBbUmVxdWVzdF0gUHJl c2VudGF0aW9uIGluIElFVEYxMDE8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJF Ti1VUyI+SGkgU2F0b3J1LDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj5PbiBNYXIgNywgMjAxOCwgYXQg MzoyMSBBTSwgU2F0b3J1IEthbm5vICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86a2Fubm9AbGVwaWR1bS5j by5qcCI+a2Fubm9AbGVwaWR1bS5jby5qcDwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi10b3A6NS4wcHQ7bWFyZ2lu LWJvdHRvbTo1LjBwdCI+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4tVVMiPkRlYXIgRE1BUkMgV0cgQ2hhaXJzLDxicj4NCjxicj4NCkknbSBzZW5kaW5nIHRvIHlv dSBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgR2Vua2kgWWFzdXRha2Etc2FuLjxicj4NCjxicj4NCkFzIEkgYXNrZWQg eW91IGxhc3QgTm92ZW1iZXIsIHdlIGFyZSBwcmVwYXJpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBuZXh0IHRyYWNrLDxi cj4NCndpdGggdGhlIGludGVudGlvbiBvZiBub3Qgb25seSByZXZpZXdpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwg YnV0IGFsc288YnI+DQppbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcgZm9yIHZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiB2RE1BUkMuIElm IHBvc3NpYmxlLCBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0bzxicj4NCmRpc2N1c3MgdGhpcyBhdCBJRVRGIDEwMS48YnI+ DQo8YnI+DQpbRGV0YWlsc108YnI+DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPGJyPg0KLSBXaGF0 IEkgd2FudCB0byB0YWxrPzxicj4NCiZuYnNwO0RyYWZ0IE92ZXJ2aWV3IGFuZCBJbXBsZW1lbnRh dGlvbiBvZiB2RE1BUkM8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQotIFRpbWUgcmVxdWlyZWQ8YnI+DQombmJzcDsxMCBt aW51dGVzICgqZXZlbiBmb3IgNSBtaW51dGVzLCBpZiB5b3VyIHNjaGVkdWxlIGlzIHRvbyBidXN5 IHRvIGFkanVzdC4pPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KLSBJbnRlcm5ldCBEcmFmdDxicj4NCiZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWFrYWdpcmkt ZG1hcmMtdmlydHVhbC12ZXJpZmljYXRpb24vIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3Jn L2RvYy9kcmFmdC1ha2FnaXJpLWRtYXJjLXZpcnR1YWwtdmVyaWZpY2F0aW9uLzwvYT48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMi PkkndmUgb25seSBiZWVuIGFibGUgdG8gZ2l2ZSB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGEgYnJpZWYgaW5pdGlhbCBs b29rLCBidXQgSSBkbyBoYXZlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0d28gaXNzdWVzLjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJF Ti1VUyI+PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkZpcnN0LCByZWdhcmRpbmcg dGhpcyB0ZXh0Ojxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPiZxdW90O0luIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQsIHdlIHByb3Bvc2UgdG8gZXhwbGljaXRs eSBtYXJrIGVtYWlscyB3aGljaCBhcmU8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxl PSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmIj5wb3RlbnRp YWxseSAmcXVvdDtkbWFyYz1wYXNzJnF1b3Q7LCBidXQgYXJlIG5vdCBtYXJrZWQgYXMgc3VjaCB2 aWEgcmVndWxhciBETUFSQyB2ZXJpZmljYXRpb24gKE5vbmUoMikpLCBhcyAmcXVvdDtkbWFyYz1w YXNzJnF1b3Q7LiZxdW90Ozwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmO21zby1mYXJl YXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkpBIj48YnIgY2xlYXI9ImFsbCIgc3R5bGU9InBhZ2UtYnJlYWstYmVmb3Jl OmFsd2F5cyI+DQo8L3NwYW4+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMi PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0 U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmIj5XaGF0IGNvdWxkIGhhcHBlbiBhcyB0aGUgcmVzdWx0IG9m IHRoaXMgYmVoYXZpb3IsIGluIHRoZSBjYXNlcyBvZiBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIG9yIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dHMsIG9uZSBjb3VsZCBlbmQgdXAgd2l0aCBvbmUgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24tUmVzdWx0cyBoZWFk ZXIgd2hpY2ggY29udGFpbnMsICZxdW90O2RtYXJjPXBhc3MmcXVvdDssIGJ1dCBhbm90aGVyIHdo aWNoIGNvbnRhaW5zLCAmcXVvdDtkbWFyYz1ub25lJnF1b3Q7LiAmbmJzcDtXaGljaCBiaXphcnJl bHksIGluIHRoaXMga2luZCBvZiBzY2VuYXJpbywgYnlwYXNzZXMgdGhlIG1haWxpbmctbGlzdCBw cm9ibGVtIERNQVJDIHByZXNlbnRseSBzdWZmZXJzIGZyb20sIGJ1dCwgd2VsbCwgYXJndWFibHkg ZnVydGhlciBjb25mdXNlcyB0aGUgaXNzdWUsIGFuZCBjYWxscyBpbnRvIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoZSBk cmFmdCdzIGFzc2VydGlvbiB0aGF0ICZxdW90O3NpbXBseSB1dGlsaXppbmc8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1i cmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiZxdW90O1VJQ1RGb250VGV4dFN0eWxlQm9keSZxdW90OyxzZXJpZiI+JnF1b3Q7ZG1hcmM9cGFz cyZxdW90OyBtYWtlcyBpdCBlYXNpZXIgdG8gbGV2ZXJhZ2UgdGhlIGZpZWxkLi4uZm9yIGVuZCB1 c2VycyB3aXRob3V0IGVub3VnaCBleHBlcnRpc2UuLi4mcXVvdDsgJm5ic3A7KEkgc3VwcG9zZSB5 b3UgY291bGQgc3RpbGwgbWFrZSB0aGF0IGFyZ3VtZW50IGlmIHRoZSBlbmQgdXNlciBpcyB2aWV3 aW5nIHRoZSAmcXVvdDtETUFSQy1pc2gmcXVvdDsgcmVzdWx0IHZpYSBhIFVJIGxpa2UsIHNheSwg R01haWwncywgYW5kIHRoYXQgVUkgcHJlc2VudHMgc29tZSBraW5kIG9mIGNhbGlicmF0ZWQgcmVz dWx0Lik8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0K PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O1VJQ1RGb250VGV4dFN0eWxlQm9keSZxdW90OyxzZXJpZjttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFn ZTpKQSI+PGJyIGNsZWFyPSJhbGwiIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPg0K PC9zcGFuPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1VJQ1RGb250VGV4dFN0eWxlQm9keSZx dW90OyxzZXJpZiI+U2Vjb25kLCByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhpcyB0ZXh0Ojwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVC b2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmO21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkpBIj48YnIgY2xlYXI9ImFsbCIg c3R5bGU9InBhZ2UtYnJlYWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+DQo8L3NwYW4+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJw YWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmIj4mcXVvdDtUaGVy ZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBkaWZmZXJpbmcgb3BpbmlvbnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIERNQVJDIHJlcG9ydHMuICZu YnNwO09uZSBpcyB0aGUgb3BpbmlvbiB0aGF0IHJlcG9ydHMgd2l0aG91dCBleHBsaWNpdGx5IHB1 Ymxpc2hlZCBETUFSQyByZWNvcmRzIGFyZSBoYXJtZnVsLCB3aGlsZSBhbm90aGVyIG9uZSBpcyB0 aGF0IHdpdGhvdXQgcmVwb3J0cywgdmlydHVhbCBETUFSQyB2ZXJpZmljYXRpb24gY2FuIG5vdCBi ZSBjYWxsZWQgRE1BUkMuICZuYnNwO0N1cnJlbnRseSwgd2UgYXJlIHNpZGluZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBm aXJzdCBvcGluaW9uIGluIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuJnF1b3Q7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT Ij48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtVSUNURm9udFRleHRTdHlsZUJvZHkmcXVv dDssc2VyaWY7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6SkEiPjxiciBjbGVhcj0iYWxsIiBzdHlsZT0i cGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj4NCjwvc3Bhbj4NCjxwcmUgc3R5bGU9InBhZ2UtYnJl YWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWlseTom cXVvdDtVSUNURm9udFRleHRTdHlsZUJvZHkmcXVvdDssc2VyaWYiPkkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIGhvdyB5 b3UgaGF2ZSBhIGNob2ljZS4gJm5ic3A7VGhlIHNlY29uZCBvcHRpb24sIGluIHByYWN0aWNlLCBy ZXN1bHRzIGluIGJ1bGssIHVuc29saWNpdGVkIGVtYWlsLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1V UyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1 b3Q7LHNlcmlmO21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkpBIj48YnIgY2xlYXI9ImFsbCIgc3R5bGU9 InBhZ2UtYnJlYWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+DQo8YnIgY2xlYXI9ImFsbCIgc3R5bGU9InBhZ2Ut YnJlYWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+DQo8L3NwYW4+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJl Zm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 VUlDVEZvbnRUZXh0U3R5bGVCb2R5JnF1b3Q7LHNlcmlmIj5UaGFua3MsPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxwcmUgc3R5bGU9InBhZ2UtYnJl YWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWlseTom cXVvdDtVSUNURm9udFRleHRTdHlsZUJvZHkmcXVvdDssc2VyaWYiPlN0YW48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_HKXPR03MB0677FDB47E0E6B803BDC413186D00HKXPR03MB0677apcp_-- From nobody Fri Mar 16 02:48:11 2018 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 1C0F2124234 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.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 hY6hOV2RDaBQ for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB401204DA for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shiny.crash.com (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id w2G9ltpT017351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com w2G9ltpT017351 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1521193686; bh=6MsJptXl+Jua9kJOkMcsfngNODDNOlAdYQ4DWrS+keI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=N4ITgCo1qwsjeG1trWOmSz4yffa3yacY+jLYGzir6JvPGda1MrzSmokA5F8iRt+EI wZC/amyvORXPS/1dFiJNLyO7DkSmD+hMy0yCc2o4+/XLF3STCIyBj8GnXAesOwO9LH STpSLhbtaccl0JN74l/RdjrAPCzOoEPYu7zm0rZPC2M1uREING8Aa8WmpbD1P/BqTl ojF5UUPl3+MQRJWwAHVntlC7U4gEZczSI6VYVCc0+GQzN/0f+q5dT5ASRULH79fJE/ Pg1vvUHKYIiMXwDGbOC/vBFfMbXotuLumxm+/zWSN4HqA/Djb85aAAlPSS0kvpo2iB 9IgpcTnOLu3Gw== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be shiny.crash.com To: dmarc@ietf.org References: From: Steven M Jones Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:47:57 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------907CAD2E82394DA088165937" Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 16 Mar 2018 09:48:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------907CAD2E82394DA088165937 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > Two more items for discussion (coming from a chat that I had with some > of the NCSC folks today): Thanks for sharing their input. > * Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional > information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite > as far as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate > and forensic levels > I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions... Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.  per-message that helps avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the effort and expense? --S. --------------907CAD2E82394DA088165937 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
Two more items for discussion (coming from a chat that I had with some of the NCSC folks today):

Thanks for sharing their input.


  • Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic levels

I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions...

Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.  per-message that helps avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the effort and expense?

--S.

--------------907CAD2E82394DA088165937-- From nobody Fri Mar 16 04:11:46 2018 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 909D6127735 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 04:11:45 -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=sonnection.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 mi1o4dVS5JtU for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 04:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0748B12762F for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 04:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx24.mailtransaction.com (mx21.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.236]) by mx20.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402jT9705Bz1L93P; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl (D57E1706.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.126.23.6]) by mx24.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402jT95pPpz1L8k2; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12454222CA; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tiger.sonnection.nl Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tiger.sonnection.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1X19Hkp7S1jq; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.40.49] (unknown [192.168.40.49]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 842034222C9; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) To: Steven M Jones , dmarc@ietf.org References: From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" Organization: Sonnection B.V. Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:11:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8C215852ABAD7C322DE1325A" Content-Language: en-US DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1521198702; bh=H3EzKlD2XTCcIxSdPQ2qclYHLVIWbGAngmnPrx7YktE=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:From; b=KruscX/XCLYWedVJxxtuMkG+FriYmDoZrJirBGMpWf6sn8pZfqIJFx1qIdL60Zyq4 JSf6P+oc+B0Nr+26YVYuyaM0P5DW/DJ1W/rHD4C31pCLbzDhbReyomTL1eYWSo6iFh inEuotL3sBbg0Dg8rRqNdQ9aWzpcp4/G67o5qxEg= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx20.mailtransaction.com 402jT9705Bz1L93P Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 16 Mar 2018 11:11:45 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------8C215852ABAD7C322DE1325A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16-03-18 10:47, Steven M Jones wrote: > On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: >> Two more items for discussion (coming from a chat that I had with=20 >> some of the NCSC folks today): > > Thanks for sharing their input. > > >> * Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional >> information (such as sending address) and URLs without going >> quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the >> aggregate and forensic levels >> > > I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually=20 > classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the=20 > moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend=20 > to rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions... > > Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.=C2=A0 per-message that helps=20 > avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to=20 > warrant the effort and expense? Well, given the upcoming GDPR legislation and the sanctions that comes=20 with it [1], maybe an agenda item 'DMARC reports and privacy' would be a=20 good point. Ideally we would like to have someone present with both GDPR=20 and DMARC knowledge... /rolf [1] https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/dpa-and-gdpr-penalties --------------8C215852ABAD7C322DE1325A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16-03-18 10:47, Steven M Jones wrote:
On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
Two more items for discussion (coming from a cha= t that I had with some of the NCSC folks today):

Thanks for sharing their input.


  • Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic levels

I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions...

Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.=C2=A0 per-message that he= lps avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the effort and expense?

Well, given the upcoming GDPR legislation and the sanctions that comes with it [1], maybe an agenda item 'DMARC reports and privacy' would be a good point. Ideally we would like to have someone present with both GDPR and DMARC knowledge...

/rolf

[1] https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/dpa-and-g= dpr-penalties

--------------8C215852ABAD7C322DE1325A-- From nobody Sat Mar 17 02:41:25 2018 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 975B61276AF for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:22 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 DO4c8Z6N3Vlp for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::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 0C003127419 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id g203-v6so4275095lfg.11 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=hJ/uyN6PLz2xpuB62/4d567NTefDMFdAcJxB0b39CSc=; b=KWiHJzwA0e1Uel99diWA8H7YVKwgkXHIxur0AVWygbHbBmTNl6HgVghJd1PpaeYU99 L4GBjVXmO/JmvG55t4VoEVXyg4uHtlUNZGkwqgf07Mg+1a9VmUS1/aove02X/e5GJ2/n 2JprfcurZzh0o46J2YwlYTD+ZtKv0v0Ux38Fw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hJ/uyN6PLz2xpuB62/4d567NTefDMFdAcJxB0b39CSc=; b=k4/2q3Alknxrw78V2kLzXzfarga8lUBwqqmbNuJRY5Ms0fWr5kSdE9y3DBQgMA1ER8 TZlm2wzhoOkLDrh6I7/TdPKH09+6SwpMtRXelWVTXOjSnznTAYZA/Nr85biPFwnwDU2C r0QBprXKP6OY08Ern7txcAlU1IOPOfBle21ZfpSdMPizFDgUNZrXw8aqU9VJuZ2wDE3f SalJKK8Sjpe/14SebBRx9t8R9q+f3Sqg+MGZLOlXPvJdolAAQQvsgTvnRZr7Tz1Iq8PI kviv+hYOpg3IW/HkNURrOws63MBP78KORHRFbJnijTdP2RMCBwtzvpDP76kK1FV18ik4 jBcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GWcXBZKp7hffePSRIo30iAEUG0Dx214OVZwJ9XewkssdR3AI2C Z8NK4Z83z7yHX3EktaGON/7d/OYueOXfUES4ss2WErUK X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELug/P/+aMPbbmHWZwUL0JXxCcaZQhOQPnNydeG9nhvETiw7pL2oAhLCsWKyfb86kjFLPdSAXFVOH6E03zdAcqU= X-Received: by 2002:a19:911a:: with SMTP id t26-v6mr3394858lfd.101.1521279679179; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:41:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:41:18 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bozoqmywTONZoCmkj0LMrAWSUK0 Message-ID: To: Steven M Jones Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1ec9305679886e5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 17 Mar 2018 09:41:23 -0000 --000000000000e1ec9305679886e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Steven M Jones wrote: > On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > > - Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional > information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far > as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic > levels > > > I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually > classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the > moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to > rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions... > > Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs. per-message that helps avoid > that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the > effort and expense? > There are two aspects to this - 1. batching (lightens the load for reporting receivers), and 2. re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) has requested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage --Kurt --000000000000e1ec9305679886e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> wr= ote:
=20 =20 =20
On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:

  • Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic levels

 I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions...

Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.=C2=A0 per-message that he= lps avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the effort and expense?

T= here are two aspects to this -=C2=A0
  1. batching (lightens t= he load for reporting receivers), and=C2=A0
  2. re privacy - the fact t= hat someone with authority (over the domain) has requested said reports suf= fices for GDPR legal/consent coverage
--Kurt
<= /div>
--000000000000e1ec9305679886e5-- From nobody Sat Mar 17 03:12:00 2018 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 730FF1243FE for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ncsc.gov.uk 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 xOsBe06KoWwD for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GBR01-LO2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr100138.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.10.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB1851242F5 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:11:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ncsc.gov.uk; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=+bYz+uqDFIIXEbXXnJyxTT3ecj9WkkT2NgGvzZtb7lI=; b=Qt9EUCWiiY3KZPrhzHRQm5Xs2wJwp1KCAkBqs+d00KyEHMkC3PNVr69S5LTMemmdiuPpPSQuhT9OYJYDBKYdDsXmrr9PwaK9UTB9dCRrFJ/k5Q1aqrbWLQHwF32UJ/leUDZi5/0zadKBxEurbyULLAFCQcdIFO/eBsQGUmhFbII= Received: from LO1P12301MB1492.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.167.30.147) by LO1P12301MB1489.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.167.30.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.588.14; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:11:52 +0000 Received: from LO1P12301MB1492.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.167.30.147]) by LO1P12301MB1492.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.167.30.147]) with mapi id 15.20.0567.019; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:11:52 +0000 From: Ian Levy To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , Steven M Jones CC: "dmarc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session Thread-Index: AQHTuTDkE9Hh3xcuTEeb0SVoW48A2KPRkSOAgAEUNICAAZB5AIAACBww Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:11:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: msip_labels: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ian.levy@ncsc.gov.uk; x-originating-ip: [51.140.78.31] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; LO1P12301MB1489; 7:ESCSMIO35+beBZ3Ch2uXzVgIRzaRPWejMeAL5zEzpcpj7kwYohT6ePEwvHBRemE8+i3vY4QBqjv9dfSzZHG3Cn2K+fdzbVramXzxF/vyRL9K5EGFApBD47P0KlCrTWwBUzH1+xP/AWXOZtKONJB1Lvr5ZRO96JOVTL/7sgKRXAqBcQp3+6rMxJwfBxVoTaFyYC5rW+7MqilixDEdv8y1sore3hUcQWvpDODXMRhA557DVzXxgq8FYMy72T1sx2hs x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bb766dd9-c93a-4e96-fa8a-08d58bef8177 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:LO1P12301MB1489; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LO1P12301MB1489: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(20558992708506)(192374486261705)(27231711734898)(21748063052155)(211171220733660); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231221)(944501244)(52105095)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(6041310)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:LO1P12301MB1489; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:LO1P12301MB1489; x-forefront-prvs: 06141B80DC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(39850400004)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39380400002)(199004)(189003)(229853002)(25786009)(53546011)(55236004)(110136005)(4326008)(105586002)(74482002)(6506007)(68736007)(2900100001)(76176011)(86362001)(6246003)(97736004)(59450400001)(74316002)(81166006)(53936002)(236005)(81156014)(186003)(55016002)(77096007)(99286004)(54896002)(9686003)(6306002)(33656002)(106356001)(7696005)(8936002)(93886005)(6436002)(26005)(316002)(2906002)(7736002)(3660700001)(3846002)(8676002)(790700001)(6116002)(75922002)(2950100002)(478600001)(3280700002)(102836004)(66066001)(5660300001)(14454004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:LO1P12301MB1489; H:LO1P12301MB1492.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ncsc.gov.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: HvvNDkDjTLAaExyR9O41F6B0hkk2mXrTZE3eoIT6qrdNFm13Hb0TAiU7sjXMtl1tJ58AgB+oKCpnepumzhJWSIV9NTSk5emAiQrtVy9v91Y/TbVnE2yWa0c2X8pmVl89op+xSVEf054sz6kIqGgmwub7WaWlF/8H4OisSfJiFjL6SVLq0mbuRRQIBOd0F//6aTdA/aZ4Vs1uFL2kRUlcAipUPRtAOMDCmEHzgIwsmzkJWYiU0uxvM24Ctbw7Y71m4vPKc3RCY8q8mueLQkLSTpS2H7ZauZX8ZbXjDVP2YRQN3nCWRciDmUOJ/D8lmvftTNDhkvV/qB1GfocPKISWXQ== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_LO1P12301MB14926BF6D7282A85105794FDC9D60LO1P12301MB1492_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ncsc.gov.uk X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bb766dd9-c93a-4e96-fa8a-08d58bef8177 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Mar 2018 10:11:52.7267 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 14aa5744-ece1-474e-a2d7-34f46dda64a1 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LO1P12301MB1489 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 17 Mar 2018 10:11:58 -0000 --_000_LO1P12301MB14926BF6D7282A85105794FDC9D60LO1P12301MB1492_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ICAqICAgcmUgcHJpdmFjeSAtIHRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgc29tZW9uZSB3aXRoIGF1dGhvcml0eSAo b3ZlciB0aGUgZG9tYWluKSBoYXMgcmVxdWVzdGVkIHNhaWQgcmVwb3J0cyBzdWZmaWNlcyBmb3Ig R0RQUiBsZWdhbC9jb25zZW50IGNvdmVyYWdlDQpJQU5BTCwgYnV0IHRoYXTigJlzIG15IHVuZGVy c3RhbmRpbmcgYXMgd2VsbC4gSWYgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgaGVscGZ1bCwgSSBjYW4gZ2V0IGEgZm9y bWFsIGxlZ2FsIG9waW5pb24gYW5kIGEgc3RhdGVtZW50IGZyb20gdGhlIFVLIEluZm9ybWF0aW9u IENvbW1pc3Npb25lcuKAmXMgT2ZmaWNlLg0KDQpUYS4NCg0KSS4NCg0KLS0NCkRyIElhbiBMZXZ5 DQpUZWNobmljYWwgRGlyZWN0b3INCk5hdGlvbmFsIEN5YmVyIFNlY3VyaXR5IENlbnRyZQ0KDQpT dGFmZiBPZmZpY2VyIDogS2F0ZSBBdGtpbnMsIGthdGUuYUBuY3NjLmdvdi51azxtYWlsdG86a2F0 ZS5hQG5jc2MuZ292LnVrPg0KDQpGcm9tOiBkbWFyYyA8ZG1hcmMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4g T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEt1cnQgQW5kZXJzZW4gKGIpDQpTZW50OiAxNyBNYXJjaCAyMDE4IDA5OjQx DQpUbzogU3RldmVuIE0gSm9uZXMgPHNtakBjcmFzaC5jb20+DQpDYzogZG1hcmNAaWV0Zi5vcmcN ClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbZG1hcmMtaWV0Zl0gQWdlbmRhIGZvciBJRVRGIDEwMSBETUFSQyBzZXNz aW9uDQoNCk9uIEZyaSwgTWFyIDE2LCAyMDE4IGF0IDEwOjQ3IEFNLCBTdGV2ZW4gTSBKb25lcyA8 c21qQGNyYXNoLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86c21qQGNyYXNoLmNvbT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KT24gMy8xNS8xOCAx MDoxOSBBTSwgS3VydCBBbmRlcnNlbiAoYikgd3JvdGU6DQoNCg0KDQogICogICBDcmVhdGluZyBh IGRpYWdub3N0aWMgcmVwb3J0IHRoYXQgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBzb21lIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24gKHN1Y2ggYXMgc2VuZGluZyBhZGRyZXNzKSBhbmQgVVJMcyB3aXRob3V0IGdvaW5nIHF1 aXRlIGFzIGZhciBhcyBhIGZvcmVuc2ljIHJlcG9ydCAtIHNvIHNvbWV0aGluZyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRo ZSBhZ2dyZWdhdGUgYW5kIGZvcmVuc2ljIGxldmVscw0KDQpJJ20gcHJvYmFibHkgbWlzc2luZyBz b21ldGhpbmcsIGJ1dCAtLSBhcmVuJ3QgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIHVzdWFsbHkgY2xhc3NlZCBh cyBQSUkgaW4gdGhlIEVVLCB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZXkncmUgc2VuZGluZyBvciByZWNlaXZpbmcgYXQg dGhlIG1vbWVudD8gU2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgaXQgd291bGQgcnVuIGFmb3VsIG9mIHRoZSBwcml2YWN5 IHJlZ3MgdGhhdCB0ZW5kIHRvIHJ1bGUgb3V0IGZvcmVuc2ljIHJlcG9ydHMgaW4gY2VydGFpbiBq dXJpc2RpY3Rpb25zLi4uDQoNCk1heWJlIHRoZXJlJ3MgYSBiYXRjaC9hZ2dyZWdhdGUgYW5nbGUg dnMuICBwZXItbWVzc2FnZSB0aGF0IGhlbHBzIGF2b2lkIHRoYXQgY29uY2Vybj8gV291bGQgdGlt ZSBhbmQgVVJMcyBhbG9uZSBiZSB1c2VmdWwgZW5vdWdoIHRvIHdhcnJhbnQgdGhlIGVmZm9ydCBh bmQgZXhwZW5zZT8NCg0KVGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBhc3BlY3RzIHRvIHRoaXMgLQ0KDQogIDEuICBi YXRjaGluZyAobGlnaHRlbnMgdGhlIGxvYWQgZm9yIHJlcG9ydGluZyByZWNlaXZlcnMpLCBhbmQN CiAgMi4gIHJlIHByaXZhY3kgLSB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IHNvbWVvbmUgd2l0aCBhdXRob3JpdHkg KG92ZXIgdGhlIGRvbWFpbikgaGFzIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBzYWlkIHJlcG9ydHMgc3VmZmljZXMgZm9y IEdEUFIgbGVnYWwvY29uc2VudCBjb3ZlcmFnZQ0KLS1LdXJ0DQoNClRoaXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g aXMgZXhlbXB0IHVuZGVyIHRoZSBGcmVlZG9tIG9mIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIEFjdCAyMDAwIChGT0lB KSBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIGV4ZW1wdCB1bmRlciBvdGhlciBVSyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBsZWdpc2xhdGlv bi4gUmVmZXIgYW55IEZPSUEgcXVlcmllcyB0byBuY3NjaW5mb2xlZ0BuY3NjLmdvdi51aw0K --_000_LO1P12301MB14926BF6D7282A85105794FDC9D60LO1P12301MB1492_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 V2luZ2RpbmdzOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjUgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0K CXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMg MiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1 IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixz YW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9y aXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZp c2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5 Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnAuTXNvTGlz dFBhcmFncmFwaCwgbGkuTXNvTGlzdFBhcmFncmFwaCwgZGl2Lk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgNCgl7 bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5OjM0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi10b3A6MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDow Y207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp IixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCnAubXNvbm9ybWFsMCwgbGkubXNvbm9ybWFsMCwgZGl2Lm1zb25vcm1h bDANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6bXNvbm9ybWFsOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRv Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowY207DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFy Z2luLWxlZnQ6MGNtOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmki LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29u YWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7DQoJY29sb3I6d2lu ZG93dGV4dDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsN Cglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgltc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFn ZTpFTi1VUzt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo2MTIuMHB0IDc5Mi4wcHQ7DQoJ bWFyZ2luOjcyLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQgNzIuMHB0IDcyLjBwdDt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJ e3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi8qIExpc3QgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBsaXN0IGwwDQoJ e21zby1saXN0LWlkOjE5MTMwNzE3MzsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0ZS1pZHM6LTExMjYyOTMz Nzg7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDENCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6MzEyNTY1OTc2Ow0KCW1zby1saXN0LXRlbXBs YXRlLWlkczo3NTM1NjA2OTI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWwxDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt Zm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9w OjM2LjBwdDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6 LTE4LjBwdDsNCgltc28tYW5zaS1mb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJv bDt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMTpsZXZlbDINCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0K CW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjcyLjBwdDsNCgltc28tbGV2 ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDsNCgltc28tYW5z aS1mb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7DQoJbXNvLWJp ZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNv LWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjEwOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0 Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw0DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1z dG9wOjE0NC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5k ZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpX aW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw1DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1 bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjE4MC4wcHQ7 DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7 DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0K QGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw2DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28t bGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjIxNi4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2kt Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2 ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrv gqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjI1Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3Np dGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEw LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1s ZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxl dmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjI4OC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0K CXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDE6bGV2ZWw5DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt Zm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9w OjMyNC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50 Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5n ZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDINCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6MTI4MjYwNzk4MDsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10 ZW1wbGF0ZS1pZHM6LTExMjYyOTMzNzg7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDMNCgl7bXNvLWxpc3QtaWQ6MTM4NjU2 MDM0NzsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10eXBlOmh5YnJpZDsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0ZS1pZHM6LTEw MzEwOTAzMiAxNjU4MTE5MTMyIDEzNDgwNzU1NSAxMzQ4MDc1NTcgMTM0ODA3NTUzIDEzNDgwNzU1 NSAxMzQ4MDc1NTcgMTM0ODA3NTUzIDEzNDgwNzU1NSAxMzQ4MDc1NTc7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDM6bGV2 ZWwxDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrv g5g7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlv bjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzOw0K CW1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJbXNvLWJpZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDM6bGV2ZWwyDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt Zm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpu b25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTgu MHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDM6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNv LWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0K CXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwz OmxldmVsNA0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRl eHQ674K3Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9z aXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlN5bWJvbDt9 DQpAbGlzdCBsMzpsZXZlbDUNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51 bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMzpsZXZlbDYNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3Jt YXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9u ZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBw dDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDM6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZl bC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVs LXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQt aW5kZW50Oi0xOC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwzOmxldmVsOA0K CXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7 DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LTE4LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCkBs aXN0IGwzOmxldmVsOQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxl dmVsLXRleHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotMTguMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5Oldp bmdkaW5nczt9DQpvbA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBjbTt9DQp1bA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t OjBjbTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZh dWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwh LS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86 aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFb ZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJFTi1HQiIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9 InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHVsIHR5cGU9ImRpc2MiPg0K PGxpIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28t bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbGlzdDpsMyBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMyI+DQpyZSBwcml2 YWN5IC0gdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBzb21lb25lIHdpdGggYXV0aG9yaXR5IChvdmVyIHRoZSBkb21h aW4pIGhhcyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgc2FpZCByZXBvcnRzIHN1ZmZpY2VzIGZvciBHRFBSIGxlZ2FsL2Nv bnNlbnQgY292ZXJhZ2U8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvbGk+PC91bD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+SUFOQUwsIGJ1dCB0aGF0 4oCZcyBteSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIGFzIHdlbGwuIElmIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGhlbHBmdWwsIEkg Y2FuIGdldCBhIGZvcm1hbCBsZWdhbCBvcGluaW9uIGFuZCBhIHN0YXRlbWVudCBmcm9tIHRoZSBV SyBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBDb21taXNzaW9uZXLigJlzIE9mZmljZS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3Vh Z2U6RU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+VGEuPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9Im1zby1mYXJl YXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPkku PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 Im1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4tLTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+RHIgSWFuIExldnk8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlRl Y2huaWNhbCBEaXJlY3RvcjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+TmF0 aW9uYWwgQ3liZXIgU2VjdXJpdHkgQ2VudHJlPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlN0YWZm IE9mZmljZXIgOiBLYXRlIEF0a2lucywgPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmthdGUuYUBuY3NjLmdvdi51 ayI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzA1NjNDMSI+a2F0ZS5hQG5jc2MuZ292LnVrPC9zcGFu PjwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJt c28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwv Yj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+IGRtYXJjICZsdDtkbWFyYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnJmd0 Ow0KPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5LdXJ0IEFuZGVyc2VuIChiKTxicj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9i PiAxNyBNYXJjaCAyMDE4IDA5OjQxPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBTdGV2ZW4gTSBKb25lcyAmbHQ7 c21qQGNyYXNoLmNvbSZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5DYzo8L2I+IGRtYXJjQGlldGYub3JnPGJyPg0KPGI+ U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBbZG1hcmMtaWV0Zl0gQWdlbmRhIGZvciBJRVRGIDEwMSBETUFSQyBz ZXNzaW9uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij5PbiBGcmksIE1hciAxNiwgMjAxOCBhdCAxMDo0NyBBTSwgU3RldmVuIE0gSm9uZXMgJmx0Ozxh IGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpzbWpAY3Jhc2guY29tIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+c21qQGNyYXNoLmNv bTwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRl cjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICNDQ0NDQ0MgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBj bSA2LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tbGVmdDo0LjhwdDttYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtIj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5PbiAzLzE1LzE4IDEwOjE5IEFNLCBLdXJ0IEFuZGVyc2VuIChiKSB3 cm90ZTo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxl PSJtYXJnaW4tdG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8 dWwgdHlwZT0iZGlzYyI+DQo8bGkgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1zby1tYXJnaW4t dG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1saXN0OmwxIGxldmVs MSBsZm8xIj4NCkNyZWF0aW5nIGEgZGlhZ25vc3RpYyByZXBvcnQgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHNv bWUgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiAoc3VjaCBhcyBzZW5kaW5nIGFkZHJlc3MpIGFuZCBV UkxzIHdpdGhvdXQgZ29pbmcgcXVpdGUgYXMgZmFyIGFzIGEgZm9yZW5zaWMgcmVwb3J0IC0gc28g c29tZXRoaW5nIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIGFnZ3JlZ2F0ZSBhbmQgZm9yZW5zaWMgbGV2ZWxzPG86cD48 L286cD48L2xpPjwvdWw+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGJyPg0KSSdtIHByb2JhYmx5IG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRoaW5nLCBidXQgLS0g YXJlbid0IGVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3NlcyB1c3VhbGx5IGNsYXNzZWQgYXMgUElJIGluIHRoZSBFVSwg d2hldGhlciB0aGV5J3JlIHNlbmRpbmcgb3IgcmVjZWl2aW5nIGF0IHRoZSBtb21lbnQ/IFNlZW1z IHRvIG1lIGl0IHdvdWxkIHJ1biBhZm91bCBvZiB0aGUgcHJpdmFjeSByZWdzIHRoYXQgdGVuZCB0 byBydWxlIG91dCBmb3JlbnNpYyByZXBvcnRzIGluIGNlcnRhaW4ganVyaXNkaWN0aW9ucy4uLjxi cj4NCjxicj4NCk1heWJlIHRoZXJlJ3MgYSBiYXRjaC9hZ2dyZWdhdGUgYW5nbGUgdnMuJm5ic3A7 IHBlci1tZXNzYWdlIHRoYXQgaGVscHMgYXZvaWQgdGhhdCBjb25jZXJuPyBXb3VsZCB0aW1lIGFu ZCBVUkxzIGFsb25lIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCBlbm91Z2ggdG8gd2FycmFudCB0aGUgZWZmb3J0IGFuZCBl eHBlbnNlPzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5UaGVyZSBhcmUgdHdvIGFzcGVjdHMgdG8gdGhpcyAtJm5ic3A7 PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8b2wgc3RhcnQ9IjEiIHR5cGU9IjEiPg0K PGxpIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28t bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvNCI+DQpiYXRjaGlu ZyAobGlnaHRlbnMgdGhlIGxvYWQgZm9yIHJlcG9ydGluZyByZWNlaXZlcnMpLCBhbmQmbmJzcDs8 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvbGk+PGxpIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRv cC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEg bGZvNCI+DQpyZSBwcml2YWN5IC0gdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBzb21lb25lIHdpdGggYXV0aG9yaXR5 IChvdmVyIHRoZSBkb21haW4pIGhhcyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgc2FpZCByZXBvcnRzIHN1ZmZpY2VzIGZv ciBHRFBSIGxlZ2FsL2NvbnNlbnQgY292ZXJhZ2U8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvbGk+PC9vbD4NCjxkaXY+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4tLUt1cnQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KVGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpcyBleGVtcHQgdW5kZXIg dGhlIEZyZWVkb20gb2YgSW5mb3JtYXRpb24gQWN0IDIwMDAgKEZPSUEpIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgZXhl bXB0IHVuZGVyIG90aGVyIFVLIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGxlZ2lzbGF0aW9uLiBSZWZlciBhbnkgRk9J QSBxdWVyaWVzIHRvIG5jc2NpbmZvbGVnQG5jc2MuZ292LnVrDQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_LO1P12301MB14926BF6D7282A85105794FDC9D60LO1P12301MB1492_-- From nobody Sat Mar 17 04:11:37 2018 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 DFCF5126C0F for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:35 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WBjr9RarKym1 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 7BCD31204DA for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id l191-v6so18951661lfe.1 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=IkHVlMjDfGIOeWkol6JkjeHnETlrnzjj3ADMTMPsdlg=; b=ML3EPgJfldonXGoz+itao1cXUOoBlr57dwwJtVKt1puPB0m7AJGzOnatvs3ihdWxvJ vpFVhIntV/P8aVvaS/uc68R9jOtMRo0s2OkJrEVl9rTp+Xf2bmicVOB29DSkjmFqr/AZ 3fm3YxOnpol8deZJOv0jOr82cxZhmxSnYr93E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IkHVlMjDfGIOeWkol6JkjeHnETlrnzjj3ADMTMPsdlg=; b=LhxtPq/nKZ0lHkqMA3Jx+Ni6+XJiPuOHn42iThuMysd/LsCNLGm9zB0Bo7U27bnS7Y wyY/65R9IxzwKUyKVn5LjKrnl7fkOneB9SuRqCrVhyopkpk2nNF4NEAXODcYVmIzMIfM UvYVQ8GOnsglYBk98HdPseET2OkGZ6p1fLt91CVLHuZpOt7gLhwdqfmSeQKo9xMILWnd jrlZ4l9mpXXqK8ftY0uIlpWBJwVUml97XUq+SbQ2XQ0CuF4dXpt7xVohABbGhuVO1BTY EElczkmw/AHGpYXY/eruvCqaOn/ADxnb7h+wbSIbCk5GLhKhgqr8K7WBlSW7i6Xyj0zO CTFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Gb8+FP28owyC2ICLrRVOyJWcM+OdvfQrBPmvUZxNBFXSFA1GYm 0sY3/GDjqYaHYJKINUI9N/diH78qcpiTHcAnxmS0/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsroiuZQzyfbn8x7u017jwWM2EqyKgVEf1gsQzkb3DHNa9SDGszawZs0Ip9+pQ7nKsEprPZWZ0xkYj3zok8+Mw= X-Received: by 2002:a19:911a:: with SMTP id t26-v6mr3538996lfd.101.1521285091504; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 04:11:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:11:30 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: goVAhawYic4DiYkgPMZhtbG6FPk Message-ID: To: Ian Levy Cc: Steven M Jones , "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007b4ba5056799c966" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 17 Mar 2018 11:11:36 -0000 --0000000000007b4ba5056799c966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Formal opinions would be helpful for people who feel the need for air cover :-) --Kurt On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Ian Levy wrote: > > - re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) > has requested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage > > IANAL, but that=E2=80=99s my understanding as well. If it would be helpfu= l, I can > get a formal legal opinion and a statement from the UK Information > Commissioner=E2=80=99s Office. > > > > Ta. > > > > I. > > > > -- > > Dr Ian Levy > > Technical Director > > National Cyber Security Centre > > > > Staff Officer : Kate Atkins, kate.a@ncsc.gov.uk > > > > *From:* dmarc *On Behalf Of *Kurt Andersen (b) > *Sent:* 17 March 2018 09:41 > *To:* Steven M Jones > *Cc:* dmarc@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session > > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Steven M Jones wrote: > > On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > > > - Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional > information (such as sending address) and URLs without going quite as = far > as a forensic report - so something between the aggregate and forensic > levels > > > I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usually > classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at the > moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to > rule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions... > > Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs. per-message that helps avoid > that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant the > effort and expense? > > > > There are two aspects to this - > > 1. batching (lightens the load for reporting receivers), and > 2. re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) > has requested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage > > --Kurt > --0000000000007b4ba5056799c966 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Form= al opinions would be helpful for people who feel the need for air cover :-)=

--Kur= t

On S= at, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Ian Levy <ian.levy@ncsc.gov.uk> wrote:
  • re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) has req= uested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage<= /li>

IANAL, but that=E2=80=99s my understand= ing as well. If it would be helpful, I can get a formal legal opinion and a= statement from the UK Information Commissioner=E2=80=99s Office.=

=C2=A0

Ta.

=C2=A0

I.

=C2=A0

--

Dr Ian Levy

Technical Director

National Cyber Security Centre

=C2=A0

Staff Officer : Kate Atkins, kate.a@ncsc.gov.uk

=C2=A0

From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kurt Andersen (b)
Sent: 17 March 2018 09:41
To: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.o= rg
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session

=C2=A0

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Steven M Jones <= ;smj@crash.com> w= rote:

On 3/15/18 10:19 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:


  • Creating a diagnostic report that would have some additional information (s= uch as sending address) and URLs without going quite as far as a forensic r= eport - so something between the aggregate and forensic levels


I'm probably missing something, but -- aren't email addresses usual= ly classed as PII in the EU, whether they're sending or receiving at th= e moment? Seems to me it would run afoul of the privacy regs that tend to r= ule out forensic reports in certain jurisdictions...

Maybe there's a batch/aggregate angle vs.=C2=A0 per-message that helps = avoid that concern? Would time and URLs alone be useful enough to warrant t= he effort and expense?

=C2=A0

There are two aspects to this -=C2=A0<= /p>

  1. batching (lightens the load for reporting receivers), and=C2=A0
  2. re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) has req= uested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage<= /li>

--Kurt

=

--0000000000007b4ba5056799c966-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 04:25:10 2018 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 E8763124B17 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:25:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it 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 UnMiMPjbfENI for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF3F1243FE for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:25:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1521372305; bh=DrvJysQZYEmoqGWauuPY9/t3GQ3q8S8Ioi0hNyJnM5k=; l=1082; h=To:From:Date; b=eZoXAwqfJsxOLNahVrSkHBMAdD0029OzuvnV4aHzWNFzjxw3ZxASIOR/ZsfTZXdM5 suDEiHBX6uXsi4YSkZXDheQGNr9Eg1Pyh0niwf2J2SJq/Ch8wTBADBVkaqTb3zFTTk 8UKp48EDBGPysRrhU+pdwfEka/2Ml9BAx3BgaQqk= Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted) Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:25:05 +0100 id 00000000005DC056.000000005AAE4C91.00005C44 To: dmarc@ietf.org From: Alessandro Vesely Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00 Message-ID: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:25:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 11:25:09 -0000 Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in the new spec? Last time I asked for its insertion, (via expert opinion) it was rejected based on the definition of ptype, according to which The exception to ptype + property indicating which particular part of the message from which the data is extracted is policy.[*] Instead, dnswl method[**] provides for a ptype of "dns". For a live example: Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it; dnswl=pass dns.zone=list.dnswl.org policy.ip=127.0.9.2 policy.txt="ietf.org https://dnswl.org/s/?s=1703" Adding that method in the main spec would certainly result in a better visibility, which is why I'm asking. It is a very easy method for those many servers that put no authentication at all on the messages they relay. Besides, that ptype could also be used to define DKIM algorithm as, say, dns.a or dns.key-a instead of header.a --just an idea. Best Ale [*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/zoMqTkkSkAXiwFTnFGWgXIaXy0c [**] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl/ From nobody Sun Mar 18 04:41:09 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA2F1270A7; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:41:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.75.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152137326299.6109.12517273621860565011@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:41:03 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 11:41:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. Title : Using Multiple Signing Algorithms with the ARC (Authenticated Received Chain) Protocol Authors : Kurt Andersen Seth Blank John Levine Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2018-03-18 Abstract: The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct authentication of the email message as it passes among them on the way to its destination. Initial development of ARC has been done with a single allowed signing algorithm, but parallel work in the DCRUP working group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dcrup/about/) is expanding the supported algorithms. This specification defines how to extend ARC for multiple signing algorithms. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Mar 18 04:49:12 2018 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 616421275FD for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:10 -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 PrAd3HWxLz0l for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 4E24F1270A7 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e5-v6so17392716lfb.7 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xMxlL6C3CAjmkdOiw040Y8jQDhOuV66lz/4oE+byayg=; b=SgDUqD+aHsCCpQczoN1DmdXh3b228fKdvk6UhSB4llylt/mzZwj7p+Mr4OYmaroahD dcJyRbIqNQT2acz8I3qo0vnGkAbd8SIIncRldJJpYeVLZuoCjhu0VNO1VUxn5ODzmWZg GzuB9U+I76EYrTKHdQgVS7f5Qcs9o84744AwI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xMxlL6C3CAjmkdOiw040Y8jQDhOuV66lz/4oE+byayg=; b=W/l08lRw/plCx4QyuxlsO79VTfOBt5yNuTL5TOhBBDri1H0t+S3zJcDshZF/iy6owr 33S2lDndp5842cFSugVmlHOoT7zn1u3xmfkEg0lnnqvxpttHkJTiBHpm4t7SvD6kT9Mr goTtxUIQpwRMwXruZ4589eUDpv3Qv7BbaF29OZQuxy5KEDiNHMqm0v5U/ZQFTfDAcl5t hI2Rp+IhiaC7ALXgMMj+hKSB+lgJmDtSQooYHBFgFHU0E1GccrFOh6ao+QoU/dVy8S6I ngIVmxNFxQ3SR9AFf3XZ7vRU6efTH8RmfXeF4qAzi1RFxOktZ369qBoSCxVLOPrTDjEd 0aBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GO5yM/gacR4STrYC2UHR/Ot2lTKX93ELQHJUb3wrt1NjcIWcc7 5cVWcVYiu5qGTscLhdh5Xr0qXVLXWFmsnE2+rJdqOIwHRyI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvmo1L9WXdRkCAoVk0hFT8XC6pVJ1SN1PSPMtHXXSacRSpM35xfdyY51L6Htv4G2d8N3i9Q4sMtsjYaiRfnxsA= X-Received: by 10.46.122.15 with SMTP id v15mr5790433ljc.141.1521373746081; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:49:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Kurt Andersen Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:49:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e8067d90b4c8760567ae6dc9" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] New version of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi posted X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 11:49:10 -0000 --f4f5e8067d90b4c8760567ae6dc9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The only changes in this version are the corrections that John had provided. Title : Using Multiple Signing Algorithms with the ARC (Authenticated Received Chain) Protocol Authors : Kurt Andersen Seth Blank John Levine Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2018-03-18 I plan to post a -12 for the arc-protocol at the end of the hackathon later today. --Kurt --f4f5e8067d90b4c8760567ae6dc9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only changes in this v= ersion are the corrections that John had provided.

=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Using Mul= tiple Signing Algorithms with the ARC (Authenticated Received Chain) Protoc= ol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Kurt Andersen
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Seth Blank
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 John Levine
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi-01.txt
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: 6
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 :=C2=A02018-03-18
=
I plan to post a -12 for the arc-protocol at the end of the hackathon la= ter today.

--Kurt
--f4f5e8067d90b4c8760567ae6dc9-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 05:27:09 2018 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 86B5F129C56 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:27:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it 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 BpOiHau1l4gJ for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31128128954 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1521376021; bh=q92Nkdp2cCEqtyoMo0RQ23gyvIUdfMzJnAGUFE5WMvk=; l=376; h=From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=c9tIAbEx25OftyHtjgSbexa7fy3zkqERBhHGPKTCCvRj07qhBDjFkZZLTE8k7q0No WXxzVZWSaXvKf37JjHRcwyaz7ettuuP/jqTXvkiYQybn6YZeOqzuILp4P0ulUbSR+W px8buHvj7xwKg9aSYwttAiFGEVM31bCdHhMQVHZs= Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted) Received: from [192.168.1.130] ([93.37.83.242]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:27:01 +0100 id 00000000005DC02A.000000005AAE5B15.000062E8 From: Alessandro Vesely To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:27:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 12:27:08 -0000 On Sun 18/Mar/2018 12:25:05 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Besides, that ptype could also be used to define DKIM algorithm as, say, dns.a > or dns.key-a instead of header.a --just an idea. Ops, I got confused by another argument[*]. Yet, dns it could used for the t= key flag. [*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/T_--uL3ZmSju3vlkkrx1T7hiziw Ale From nobody Sun Mar 18 05:44:03 2018 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 B7D731277BB for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 RMc4soox_trF for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 A324C126D3F for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id h127-v6so21482038lfg.12 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:43:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iyyUyKzJXXmc4q3XrT+53nZObCUS/EdQrBW/WWZbJik=; b=YUCYzMv+/qLI14TJGU+tD5N+337BoszDF+NcPsSLLcB2JbZ0J/aJXabNACoSu1Hr+Y EN6v/dMBdqyksjOOkkDvcAt9ePYOeF+uouv7JYnI9ITYs/hliLDK9Xt4Ey2Fg6CXCD/W 28czLjSB/AAx3Wq4Rd+NCDnpEiktWLhhpCapOp9U7lxtD+2WWB/N543zi3HHFtcgyhkF M9/Pr7QQYy7uFqp0DeFksm6f+mg+RFSO8V+99gxx0rmycqFUliw5SsB8BMlez3+HQWkA N12DLfNs29+7cxDTxlcYYiBWBD2gqByoxF3DeTpaKiNJ4Q1ShY+YIFjfDE3quBVBnmMr ddJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iyyUyKzJXXmc4q3XrT+53nZObCUS/EdQrBW/WWZbJik=; b=enPNgAAWgxUo+lLq/S+tOyvxK+vm5Q18wD3xrOSmntE/lHvRAIMrBjPeDrDe4gvCdL MLV1yW8QroJNogi2JJ2Rws8zgDOhoNhZJBILzy2e47UAt3Tj8kFmgBBQrmm/SAaveYkE cxwyn5l4PK86MWzq2b7/EpeelhU5iuEFRcH7xMxonEos0i579+Jyt2hNaffmMfcyAD1t 4bc05nh5qg8U8kMu4FYwJlcS1qgOUH2sR0MDnzsuacT3GIyKglpxX8UQFU3/Hxu1ozUU snkXoDM8wzW56Qf+H+cTLrKJLehvkOvIoCAI32ZesTjk7vTZJy4chIGOLYbB/1ktIhfB W6Nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FXdL9tPIdjM7MP8nltrMsMkkX4ymzItwrIz/Tn2iyeSHHS1u+G bLmRyXiy4kQGOcGLMkUy5gzxcOGsW/JKCGHJkJzX3A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtkLnvri6Ej5MtpYehlwFpvz9vCYrgXA3ui+ahSG9qwCal9Kb4lldeF/O4hR9+bHtOQVYmUbepH2cY4bYNxd7A= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6d03:: with SMTP id i3-v6mr5515662lfc.34.1521377037796; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.66.82 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:43:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> References: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:43:56 +0000 Message-ID: To: Alessandro Vesely Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e84ab80567af3100" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 12:44:02 -0000 --000000000000e84ab80567af3100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in the new spec? > [...] > I'd prefer to do this as its own document. The current one is feeling very "kitchen sink" already, and this change has more meat to it than the others that have been requested. > Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it; > dnswl=pass dns.zone=list.dnswl.org > policy.ip=127.0.9.2 > policy.txt="ietf.org https://dnswl.org/s/?s=1703" > I have a few things I'd like to see done differently in your expired draft: * "dnswl" is specifically a whitelist; should we also register "dnsbl"? Or do we really need two distinct entries for the same mechanism? * I think "policy.txt" is under-specified. A downstream agent shouldn't be expected to know how to decode this, and it can change from one implementation to the next. * Why repeat "policy.ip" for multiple replies, rather than comma-separating the various replies? -MSK --000000000000e84ab80567af3100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@= tana.it> wrote:
Would it be possible to insert a= dnswl method in the new spec?
[...]

I'd prefer to do this as its = own document.=C2=A0 The current one is feeling very "kitchen sink"= ; already, and this change has more meat to it than the others that have be= en requested.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 dnswl=3Dpass dns.zone=3Dlist.dnswl.org
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 policy.ip=3D127.0.9.2
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 policy.txt=3D"ietf.org https://dnswl.org/s/?= s=3D1703"

I have a few things = I'd like to see done differently in your expired draft:

* "dnswl" is specifically a whitelist; should we also register= "dnsbl"?=C2=A0 Or do we really need two distinct entries for the= same mechanism?
* I think "policy.txt" is under-sp= ecified.=C2=A0 A downstream agent shouldn't be expected to know how to = decode this, and it can change from one implementation to the next.
* Why repeat "policy.ip" for multiple replies, rather than= comma-separating the various replies?

-MSK
--000000000000e84ab80567af3100-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 08:20:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB47126E01; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:20:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.75.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152138641291.15839.17459884645359483406@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:20:12 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 15:20:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol Authors : Kurt Andersen Brandon Long Steven Jones Seth Blank Murray Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12.txt Pages : 54 Date : 2018-03-18 Abstract: The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct authentication of the email message as it passes among them on the way to its destination, and create an attached, authenticated record of the status at each step along the handling path, for use by the final recipient in making choices about the disposition of the message. Changes in the message that might break existing authentication mechanisms can be identified through the ARC set of header fields. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Mar 18 08:35:22 2018 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 4589912D7FC for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:20 -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 5RX8PUqsbBQL for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (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 0C26A126E01 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h127-v6so21815722lfg.12 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=khzJvgMemoC17zWy9DTkNtpVGbpyGZPOWRcfxPoOCcc=; b=bp4uvAvlTEDktCQZ0/UlsK0U7IaJLCcMPgGyJp+NmJknR2QXBlqAdPn9t5Im0WOz0t ipcpYNRyRl6ZKp9bqfOZ6g8Cq5HBZ6nIHdOpJBLnP8eNIlENoc+csPfidphqBfdReeQi SKGlBDyLEGYkLsEoS1Qhkq2PBgDW4Lbd1Yiqo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=khzJvgMemoC17zWy9DTkNtpVGbpyGZPOWRcfxPoOCcc=; b=pvv0+f2KVUSQZpfnhPGA7yBIPK2U9LRFyuCPngJApccQ5Rf3f5Fm2GCHNzSp4MpJhG Bh4xXddD3r3qrqgCj+RVzNjmuBBMSUzwVwFOuvkp3grgV+zm2ldisAVCIJt0gfsVMVbO zijYSqpiyuWHGKQhg83G3iK9rkBZw248zIUwBrBaCAc+MFzU6DL1zQBjFkkYmhwDyqcX 4cHBIUD5+VS7Ph/NwhLg5gyBSojC1muUEO5PEYqTdIXaMTuAcmURfLuccZdFEgNCjcRm n9PlQHqiU0+czX6+0PGp0io84XgGeaSYdlnBUjPYaVg7rf0s82kPCNK/rqmcqSzA9jwj RKyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7E7Y17FcGnFdJFOmXBhr9o3FDI2/aSXgKpAj8JmA7apBSrYiWYJ /cGk5Cr71z3j1/EiuSK8JXCafwGfGOf+Gd2kHLrCTkC1Qy0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuq5jlI6KVW1B8OQegi1E1bVYkGgu8vThMoTInbmFvza/8iF3cWTl4SLY/uG/0GkNSsRzrooSvi63TChcd/G0Y= X-Received: by 10.46.135.74 with SMTP id q10mr5682848ljj.73.1521387315920; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152138641291.15839.17459884645359483406@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152138641291.15839.17459884645359483406@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:35:15 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N8EWJ7dorAxn7OoKeSWqaUaCxDM Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="883d24f22f44881dd40567b196d7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 15:35:20 -0000 --883d24f22f44881dd40567b196d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" This version incorporates various fixes suggested by people since -11. There are a collection of (mostly minor) open issues now logged into the issue tracker ( https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&component=arc-protocol&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component&order=priority) and referenced from within the document. I'd like to propose this version for WGLC consideration. --Kurt On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, wrote: > > Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12.txt > Pages : 54 > Date : 2018-03-18 > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12 > --883d24f22f44881dd40567b196d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This version incorporates various fixes suggested by peopl= e since -11. There are a collection of (mostly minor) open issues now logge= d into the issue tracker (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/query?status= =3Daccepted&status=3Dassigned&status=3Dnew&status=3Dreopened&am= p;component=3Darc-protocol&col=3Did&col=3Dsummary&col=3Dstatus&= amp;col=3Dtype&col=3Dpriority&col=3Dmilestone&col=3Dcomponent&a= mp;order=3Dpriority) and referenced from within the document.=C2=A0
I'd like to propose this version for WGLC consideration= .

--Kurt

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, <= ;internet-dra= fts@ietf.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-1= 2.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 54
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2018-03-18

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-i= etf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12
https://datatracker.ietf.org/<= wbr>doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-12
--883d24f22f44881dd40567b196d7-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 10:54:25 2018 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 A5B3A1270FC for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 RzKjpL5Yl41V for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 955FA126DFF for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id x205-v6so22152203lfa.0 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o48W2EvgundmNgsTz6ejAfdBhL6JvmxwvoTRAAMX5+8=; b=DlGKjTAuU9P6axi6Ar/ac+9gUVm3giVkevPunlZnPhMsji2RuAb+tBBbp1r0D3y1V7 jzjA9CGIxkuLQWZW9pT60gNKDV/BYm62eCgx5g3o0IkVZmxWCamjgl6thEOhCv+0vd7S 8AxIHKET3A3oY8knbSj04nZEl4hMUj0xUnryLiQ9c8tc+Dfdpc0MY73jceug/BH7ioJ7 vvnhVpmDI6CBH319N9xG8DFxKKRl0ykmBT/RUBFP76fWyzEK5L1sv3yCTXhrnY5j35MO Es63gOH1uM6flskKxzIFSBcMVdPfiriFI0a8RA86o2ws9WQr1mi8wnQbW5LNxk6myV1J /H4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=o48W2EvgundmNgsTz6ejAfdBhL6JvmxwvoTRAAMX5+8=; b=CRbr3wnWD6NGmk63ejOiwaJc5a8ooWE0QXsqveDgYR6XP9hIZSr6iCyNM2EzpB6OqH 0ufFjqQhHFwsk/AmlF7OyNl2Swgf9Gp9C1ZvDnsCYyJiaTfX8BCs1+EW4aDcos4QKnXx 4vl6ytLx8YEay6C2uC7hCFZnLUvYyqDb15lf+sabHA6B5m9mprN89YBfiJuk3Mmx6CAm fV1D8xwr+U+I2beCHSvjHr9Uzn60cpEDtjjALX39Z/2GWKkegwF0kB6mZin9eke+/IHa FxV2tIaIebtBoSMs4QRP06O71M64V9mfjXmt4InABa1AM6oupPUZkjJTsRzccPmQ2YNj p03A== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EQ0X9aNhMxW0IsYMKsNLUjUWvZ6WVedjapbGk6akVUehKkQXIA s62avkDIixiLDfA/eUoveytuMY3mMGTeH3LA4HST9s2b X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtZqdzXrkI8Qxa1IDcK+6IqbI9ELC2JXzLZqhnbOhspGEvvaM++rSYuZGeAjEbFEjrRm+GNCuBbOUaAT4Fzq50= X-Received: by 10.46.78.17 with SMTP id c17mr6340884ljb.44.1521395658510; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a19:d013:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Peter M. Goldstein" Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:54:17 -0700 Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ecf06c9d7cf0567b38703" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 17:54:24 -0000 --f403045ecf06c9d7cf0567b38703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Kurt, Re: -12, it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark Eissler sent to the list on 2/27. There was also no on-list reply to his email that I saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue. His email is included below. Mark's analysis appears to be on-point, and I think the XML fragment he references (now in ARC draft-12 section 7.3) should be revised to: delivered fail fail local_policy arc=pass ams[2].d=d2.example ams[2].s=s1 as[2].d=d2.example as[2].s=s2 as[1].d=d1.example as[1].s=s3 As he notes, this is consistent with the existing DMARC aggregate report schema and the source_ip is already captured in an XML element that is a sibling to per Appendix C of RFC 7489, in the definition of the complex type RowType. If you believe this is a correct update, can we get it incorporated into the draft? If not, where's the mistake in the above? Thanks. Best, Peter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Eissler Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Hi. I met some of the members of this WG at M3AAWG #42 last week. I've been working on implementing several patches to the OpenDKIM, OpenARC, OpenDMARC milters over the past few weeks as part of my work at Valimail. I'm currently updating OpenDMARC's reporting to include ARC findings as per draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10 but I've found what looks like a typo in the example XML report format as provided in section 9.3 of the draft: delivered fail fail source.ip=10.0.0.1 local_policy arc=pass ams[2].d=d2.example ams[2].s=s1 as[2].d=d2.example as[2].s=s2 as[1].d=d1.example as[1].s=s3 Specifically, the element appears to be incorrect as it contains an embedded element which not only results in invalid XML syntax but also implies a schema that isn't defined: the value definition (DMARCResultType) doesn't provide for the provision of such an element. Furthermore, the source IP is already captured in the element--a sibling of . I think a corrected example would be this: delivered fail fail local_policy arc=pass ams[2].d=d2.example ams[2].s=s1 as[2].d=d2.example as[2].s=s2 as[1].d=d1.example as[1].s=s3 -mark -- Mark Eissler | mark@bunker5.com | http://about.me/markeissler _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc --f403045ecf06c9d7cf0567b38703 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kurt,

Re: -12, it doesn't appear to= capture the feedback in the email Mark Eissler sent to the list on 2/27.= =C2=A0 There was also no on-list reply to his email that I saw, so I wanted= to re-raise the issue.=C2=A0 His email is included below.

Mark's analysis appears to be on-point, and I think the XML fr= agment he references (now in ARC draft-12 section 7.3) should be revised to= :

<policy_evaluated&g= t;
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <disposition>delivered= </disposition>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <dkim>fail</dkim>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <spf>fail</spf>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <reason>
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <type>local_policy</type>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <comment>arc=3Dpass ams[2].d= =3Dd2.example ams[2].s=3Ds1 as[2].d=3Dd2.example
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 as[2].s=3Ds2 as[1].d=3Dd1.example as[1].s= =3Ds3</comment>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 </reas= on>
</policy_evaluated>

As he notes, this is consistent with the existing DMARC aggregate r= eport schema and the source_ip is already captured in an XML element that i= s a sibling to <policy_evaluated> per Appendix C of RFC 7489, in the = definition of the complex type RowType.

If you believe this is a correct update, can = we get it incorporated into the draft?=C2=A0 If not, where's the mistak= e in the above?

Thanks.<= /span>

Best,

Peter

-------= --- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mar= k Eissler <mar= k@bunker5.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM
Subj= ect: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section = 9.3
To: "dmarc@ietf.org"= <dmarc@ietf.org>


Hi= . I met some of the members of this WG at M3AAWG #42 last week.

I've been working on implementing several patches to the OpenDKIM, Open= ARC, OpenDMARC milters over the past few weeks as part of my work at Valima= il. I'm currently updating OpenDMARC's reporting to include ARC fin= dings as per draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10 but I've found what = looks like a typo in the example XML report format as provided in section 9= .3 of the draft:

<policy_evaluated>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <disposition>delivered</disposition>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <dkim>fail</dkim>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <spf>fail <comment>source.ip=3D10.0.0.1</= comment></spf>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <reason>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <type>local_policy</type>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <comment>arc=3Dpass ams[2].d=3Dd2.example= ams[2].s=3Ds1 as[2].d=3Dd2.example
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 as[2].s=3Ds2 as[1].d=3Dd1.example as[1].s=3Ds3&= lt;/comment>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 </reason>
</policy_evaluated>

Specifically, the <spf> element appears to be incorrect as it contain= s an embedded <comment> element which not only results in invalid XML= syntax but also implies a schema that isn't defined: the value definit= ion (DMARCResultType) doesn't provide for the provision of such an elem= ent. Furthermore, the source IP is already captured in the <source_ip>= ; element--a sibling of <policy_evaluated>.

I think a corrected example would be this:

<policy_evaluated>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <disposition>delivered</disposition>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <dkim>fail</dkim>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <spf>fail</spf>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <reason>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <type>local_policy</type>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <comment>arc=3Dpass ams[2].d=3Dd2.example= ams[2].s=3Ds1 as[2].d=3Dd2.example
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 as[2].s=3Ds2 as[1].d=3Dd1.example as[1].s=3Ds3&= lt;/comment>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 </reason>
</policy_evaluated>

-mark

=C2=A0--
=C2=A0Mark Eissler | mark@bunker5.com |=C2=A0http://about.me/markeissler

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

--f403045ecf06c9d7cf0567b38703-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 11:00:41 2018 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 EF6E512DA6F for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:32 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ws45wh6h96WS for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 C4C4A12D7EF for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id j68-v6so1535793lfg.13 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=bn9pFiGelD0W2MMqfzGTEfEL+130oBcwLLc4fQu9bR0=; b=SA/7cWJSVlZS+r+Zc7HvmwHZv5yz4CPzYDkhVjReIBIfOEE5tjsdTXOX7kLryDB6u5 ORG9x2/pvM9SqmG/lCjBoNC0K3VyDFGxGARJNNJ6ntdCvDb6QXkD68e6fbs2fLIjMDGq 79wgyQzWegNlEsAcewUr11xbM+nONShyHHiSc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bn9pFiGelD0W2MMqfzGTEfEL+130oBcwLLc4fQu9bR0=; b=hdHN22q5I4B/s/lWaWfAr15Z7fFr+VzpJtDroOaBz17rlYZtTeYDiAQchqMPjm2gG+ gIhZ40v8LckeNZ399BggVD1E62k7kcflHNZ3fVKJeIyQpxv8OPS5+72TdW2Cotvh34NJ i+FC4LNP7TODqS/fOBp5dp4qfUtNx/hJvI6fP7TsVmUxWx+CeDaH6RM7St2d/c0JnRdo XtEdZftwC2OnoWBE/PuoDlpNGI9qZ3byUpTnwsfNhR4Q3Gej5CLSy3NsM69ocqMJ54SO X7mn6X/baIw+ppW2sUMT+TOdWMFKPVeDdAdyGpUUwaWyxFt95qGTPueMwoRyJFTrvsyW YsCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HPidRiQZNwBMkzos4XtyICHA3veClGLJHEfsrwOxv1ER3y7mFu DlnVGJfLtyp+9y7IoNfFF/D3Pa8hf1L30YrdV+LegA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsjA8YXmN6a4FJtbQj02kb1fWlWRyzWptIE0yk+dP1WLkFhNjMrSWpjMXfo8zv3kOzvvFlWdtNfLEycHMMBwFo= X-Received: by 2002:a19:911a:: with SMTP id t26-v6mr5961637lfd.101.1521396022899; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:00:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:00:22 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iw_VU45nwxCZESe1aS5S4shf-PM Message-ID: To: "Peter M. Goldstein" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000082224d0567b39de3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 18:00:36 -0000 --00000000000082224d0567b39de3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldstein < peter.m.goldstein@gmail.com> wrote: > Kurt, > > Re: -12, it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark > Eissler sent to the list on 2/27. There was also no on-list reply to his > email that I saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue. His email is included > below. > I've captured this point in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18. I have no objections per se, but would like to know whether the group thinks that the entire section should be removed into its own document (see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket). --Kurt --00000000000082224d0567b39de3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldstein <peter.m.goldste= in@gmail.com> wrote:
Kurt,

Re: -12, it doesn't appear to captu= re the feedback in the email Mark Eissler sent to the list on 2/27.=C2=A0 T= here was also no on-list reply to his email that I saw, so I wanted to re-r= aise the issue.=C2=A0 His email is included below.
=

I've captured this point = in=C2=A0https://trac= .ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18. I have no objections per se, but would = like to know whether the group thinks that the entire section should be rem= oved into its own document (see=C2=A0https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket).


--00000000000082224d0567b39de3-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 11:01:50 2018 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 9D876126DFF for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:47 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 wF5kaKnTI7vC for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (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 13409124D6C for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l5-v6so15149580otf.9 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KUOj72PJhu2g0C3iHD4uSVRoMMwX9s++/53Ui8OWrm0=; b=E/CeorRJbkjGHQGHrD3e7rCnaXDprociSB9qyoIR9tMwxqNk47D6jntIJL8oj9URDh K/BRnqAQLO5ZoEGYkFgxmpnPBzozFz67tloIDAaRyx4DDXtWyznRXTiAxVGnjx0uXHHQ 0PZn/L71Tydgx0mcgKjNMfbagt5LEEg2rSOAjxRypiCmPNJ6E4fIjLBO1n76yAyxAhD+ eVyMcvr5XfHtqzrDU1noWPYwsq8fKHZmwSo7T36sT4L/yCTOu0J6KBm1b/0AFyqGh7Gf qRdMP9c2bNTNBs71iGRgCQbdNOW0MP6XdIuRxi5TCyW96U5vHon3cdOEXQDLgw9MQU44 iQzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KUOj72PJhu2g0C3iHD4uSVRoMMwX9s++/53Ui8OWrm0=; b=itw6briVYoyuRdGr93TYoYleMEITN4xh3mNyVyQq8zpg2qwk3so7CrunAu4UXJfUY6 fKWJl3lw+RghblGZGFXBnARSt1QEgylWdRaqbGy7gHaAvtf+Ui4kSjnu8Hzri2S79UO4 HpsTqyYpN8kHk/dKIGEH2cxPcIvBX9WW0ZCcMHXnqY6s5QOMt3w39nAAYSTKiHgQSJX8 6u0cFJDz+WKuLWkPJONKiAvHZ5640/ZTYgmTMAyqSLQtJSWknglO2uKL4kYJqygHK41W V/Bl6uvk3VxcMb2qXGdPruBQu2cimAa/aM2tdSmzgwibPdAjdq+4/aihYslYY2UQP15H 0zCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H4jVz5ipt/ImL/Fr/WrRvxLI1Vl8s4WBQnnz2YJVMQ5KxOjIKs fxDYRBgEebxzRucYewaW5Iu56Af/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtgUuea9VT27jS/bvhlNdjYzoaZd7IdOGTN+WvqbiThDNsqAYtsZ08TqsvmJ5jk8CA05jzOIg== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:20a2:: with SMTP id x31-v6mr5698001ota.242.1521396102750; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.8.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 13sm6383596oix.45.2018.03.18.11.01.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT) To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , Steven M Jones Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" References: From: Dave Crocker Message-ID: <2f141557-3a0a-1283-0653-32f126bc9d5a@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:01:38 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda for IETF 101 DMARC session X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 18:01:47 -0000 On 3/17/2018 2:41 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > There are two aspects to this - > > 1. batching (lightens the load for reporting receivers), and > 2. re privacy - the fact that someone with authority (over the domain) > has requested said reports suffices for GDPR legal/consent coverage I'll suggest that 'privacy' divides into at least three important distinctions: 1. Identification of PII among a set of data ii ie, define an attribute set 2. Ability to handle PII differentially 3. Policies for deciding when/how to divulge PII and to whom The first two are technical details that seem to make sense for this group. The last does not. The essential benefit of excluding the third item, is that it then means the group does not need legal expertise (except to make sure that the mechanical listing of attributes considered PII is sufficient -- but I'm guessing that's far easier than the when/how/who disclosure behavior.... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Mar 18 11:03:02 2018 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 44464126DFF for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:03:00 -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 fNvMrTPxqf5y for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (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 29BDC124D6C for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id j68-v6so1541449lfg.13 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0uV7zU4vkmrecycpN5k65MJ4oEmZYLHrpude+EHC8DQ=; b=hg1KE27VjdhgMNbn8j7om5A29zuak/fFRhceCr+yhuyMk56/YypLSako+H8S2BLupj sDzI0xv9+7fDaSn3KFNXOBMtR69WuXy2NkS7MQvYigcreeTGR3WlkXKUkhTFw7H1dYlr s3p6LttSJMVTXjIzTekZshCRBd9ONFkxc/2t+MEFL2gg2SOgSyoiJkXpwPL5xcTVvowa 0n2/0zZpsY2kQd/pkss+kcN9FGjiyKbyFwCkFucd73QCvGpbDeH+g30GgCrZtZAjcMOO 4xONwvs6z5QlLPmISI+AF18roFnALzo9p0h1YNoRzcqycr9BZDNH+hs3ZOJj/wDckh3l 3b+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0uV7zU4vkmrecycpN5k65MJ4oEmZYLHrpude+EHC8DQ=; b=JbUVrvVfxhH6AqDp09s1YUF7MULuYaQc1N5jWWDpO6Id12ufv6NudwjgojJPxC2cke Om4idKnE+4u63AjziG1xiM91puu4lDJDUtOzU8wJZ7Gbs2slegH6PJ6lhs+jtj36OOxH IRUFJDT6PKXMK9QO9ku05GNJ2Es100D6y45KDPmWjwnx29zhApFdVhj4v2XmPq26nuvV Y4nNGt3thEafHHx0iVdzk0gF2cAHqLfr8/BZG/WgQEZH9AXmeRk6JQQpFw4IsfhvwHGh uewaepQeHyHaWuJCDOCmeVpIQonqUIGCK2d9CAsyXnJHFhFuXQ1HLAInCbabiVmWklAT Ktcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GVE8wZz0HQoh2V30EJ+MsV+TZtOjFORzmCe0yWoUOm8Qm7ytK3 ASWsP3vYCGHbCPGkAVgG3ELGHs0UUGx7Ms7OK+f1oRX0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvMnHKAP/LE2hNtv5dvBdrx4b3lKkfM5EwCiUTbSpRX6YbvlC+D1ORIEma2de69LB9mckAV7RkjSBEqyZGcFiI= X-Received: by 2002:a19:48c7:: with SMTP id v190-v6mr6319921lfa.26.1521396175455; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a19:d013:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Peter M. Goldstein" Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:02:54 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099cd5b0567b3a6b1" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 18:03:00 -0000 --00000000000099cd5b0567b3a6b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for capturing. I agree it makes sense to figure out ticket #16 ( https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket) first. Best, Peter On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldstein < > peter.m.goldstein@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kurt, >> >> Re: -12, it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark >> Eissler sent to the list on 2/27. There was also no on-list reply to his >> email that I saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue. His email is included >> below. >> > > I've captured this point in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18. I > have no objections per se, but would like to know whether the group thinks > that the entire section should be removed into its own document (see > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket). > > --Kurt > > --00000000000099cd5b0567b3a6b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for capturing.=C2=A0 I agree it makes sense to figu= re out ticket #16=C2=A0(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc= /ticket/16#ticket) first.

Best,

Peter

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Kur= t Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldst= ein <peter.m.goldstein@gmail.com> wrote:
Kurt,

Re: -12,= it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark Eissler se= nt to the list on 2/27.=C2=A0 There was also no on-list reply to his email = that I saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue.=C2=A0 His email is included = below.

I've captured this point in=C2=A0https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18. I have no objections per se, but would like to know w= hether the group thinks that the entire section should be removed into its = own document (see=C2=A0https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16= #ticket).

--Kurt


--00000000000099cd5b0567b3a6b1-- From nobody Sun Mar 18 12:12:23 2018 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 D91341273E2 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:12:21 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mixtur.onmicrosoft.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 9D3S7c1Rjp2t for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0061.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15ECA126D73 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mixtur.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-bunker5-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=D11Q7ukf0ZP6eh4+GCdqj6yndeb+Qh2LEWFScmhW+fc=; b=UMTjASqdliqdBkyT2fWpvJQg0QI7mlhJzivxfcqhM+R5bb1dS3zq0jhnkMmNUoTylog0RzJRBnvjDenrPb7EKjurzgngj1A5VryQ9EMz1qp+rJl01m1BUh/4AjW1HdxOcEe9zsSyK23kKaBWh6af0dLaTNRViCF7l04dhtrGnYg= Received: from CY4PR0401MB3524.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.132.99.35) by CY4PR0401MB3700.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.132.103.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.588.14; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:12:15 +0000 Received: from CY4PR0401MB3524.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1de:ab88:98a2:56f6]) by CY4PR0401MB3524.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d1de:ab88:98a2:56f6%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0588.016; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:12:15 +0000 From: Mark Eissler To: "Peter M. Goldstein" , "Kurt Andersen (b)" CC: "dmarc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 Thread-Index: AQHTsATMgSwBohtuH0CIe8Mo8Cj7CqPWZDqAgAABswCAAAC2AIAAEPR6 Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:12:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2601:647:402:4036:99bb:f9dc:a7fe:2891] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR0401MB3700; 6:urib5k1UXhFXIr8AnukH5zEkXr3WHLocRDxYbz+d8enZMi1YM+63WXfhHbBYEXpLe4VuHVyqXuDYlh8aaMZSTnX/t9r6caCA4wEa948Cz0VomNkkcjlsgvduTuP8qm3wCeV0Qp+B0DrETHDEbfMBxsMHm7G48pDa8ngMVeJ2jaVRjOjUa+95nX5WsthBljA9D/nHX1qury3Pax1ejF8N+zyx4vBX3tSiZ2vFHASISU60JZRLzz2+ug2z6mB7pGiy1NPuNCPmyyPTi+aEO9kv8eUiL0tkIJCf2/Dnicw4DeEs99qBG5BeTJz88XTVjUK/yPEuqxscL+AuY/SY6+7ZH0AXRsbu6lNNW+eQl0Do4LxEcAaI/BywNqkx1h0fG1MD; 5:GAM2179CbqWnBJXxSF6MtzeYfszo34l7ODv8Z8NuX+akA3H5PbShcDvI79GaL7vlVUIwMQaHIMsKEFxrIMA8tIfGKq2jx5c5L58ul88nAatLiAr/r0ycd0sp5iWF75tIwTmcyks2VcSzH2suOobIH1JiQ2BucwJIZR7iLlF96yY=; 24:VMUiFYqzWvSAoYVyuXs2+VbcliJAvIDB06bZbNVNipzbEZSUR/QQv8ZUylBrGWN0XNZtpoRuAhKPnEnA8CzCXriSVhq9XZ/56t2cgRKcpCs=; 7:5h29dJKuTHsMW2s9qT4XYxCXMenXr2d1F8rN76xFdWFyx4qVOhAOMGPQUwBQn50TklI+3VK88PQQ5n0F7pxwkNgKR9d1Y6ctR85OLULyz2hfxyR18GZAnxuXH+IEo+UBOryzsjC8/nQ4vO6fElxw945rh0gPK3BvHS5bHx72r73XQUKrYcuBnDbjg0V3xo1y/qH/ToMERY2JeiFST1w6SOj/obBimLrFieu+dK/rUe2E/zs8y7a5eS2956nbS6cy x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 82505296-3eff-4749-81f3-08d58d042953 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(7021125)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(7022125)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(7048125)(7024125)(7027125)(7028125)(7023125)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:CY4PR0401MB3700; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR0401MB3700: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mark@bunker5.com; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(85827821059158); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231221)(944501300)(52105095)(10201501046)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(2016111802025)(6072148)(6043046)(201708071742011); SRVR:CY4PR0401MB3700; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR0401MB3700; x-forefront-prvs: 06157D541C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(39830400003)(396003)(366004)(39380400002)(376002)(199004)(189003)(53936002)(105586002)(2900100001)(46003)(25786009)(33656002)(229853002)(2906002)(305945005)(7736002)(74316002)(4326008)(106356001)(3280700002)(186003)(6116002)(97736004)(6246003)(5660300001)(39060400002)(59450400001)(3660700001)(93886005)(478600001)(8936002)(5250100002)(316002)(68736007)(6436002)(9686003)(6306002)(53546011)(86362001)(7696005)(55016002)(76176011)(99286004)(966005)(2950100002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(14454004)(102836004)(6506007)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR0401MB3700; H:CY4PR0401MB3524.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: bunker5.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: SEUz7+BUTlOtgC1CwdYMaZ5aHon34wdS8vxkZ6P63JFXN/sQkteVcUxCVDvJyljZeCssMQ6FNm8ZuItrXcQa3GNRLMwaK3ILPp/TAtLdpjsGGmgx5i5DqWS8A364fx0s1hO47w4Wmpyc/oWBspIA6GiQ8X3HCOYwQadNlV92dlFvyV5TyAzIJiDQNpm/3S1vZyV7xvl+ohf3+ULk2DnaaNUtsiBczBqj0JX0ApYIwwjvDHaC2UnkTsTSf5oDW0qB90TMfW7p7p9PMc63L7dorzaBmgrdTQuyts/sUgYQfCsKIkJQpzQkMlhmJlZbhl6Wrvci92mWP6+mk8asVClMVQ== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: bunker5.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 82505296-3eff-4749-81f3-08d58d042953 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Mar 2018 19:12:15.3329 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 23596c3a-0c0d-492b-87e1-078e2ca29ed6 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR0401MB3700 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10 section 9.3 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 18 Mar 2018 19:12:22 -0000 The only thing I'd add is that in discussion with Seth Blank, I've implemen= ted the following format (for now) in an open PR for OpenDMARC that impleme= nts this: delivered fail fail source.ip=3D10.0.0.1 local_policy arc=3D[status] as[N].d=3DdN.example.com as[N].s=3DsN .. as[1].d=3Dd= 1.example.com as[1].s=3Ds1 -mark =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=20 From: dmarc on behalf of Peter M. Goldstein Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 11:02:54 AM To: Kurt Andersen (b) Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draf= t-10 section 9.3 =A0=20 Thanks for capturing.=A0 I agree it makes sense to figure out ticket #16=A0= (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket)=A0 first. Best, Peter=20 On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Kurt Andersen (b)=A0 w= rote: On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldstein wrote: Kurt, Re: -12, it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark Eissle= r sent to the list on 2/27.=A0 There was also no on-list reply to his email= that I saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue.=A0 His email is included be= low.=A0=20 =20 I've=A0 captured this point in=A0https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18= . I have no objections per se, but would like to know whether the group thi= nks that the entire section should be=A0 removed into its own document (see= =A0https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket). --Kurt=A0=20 =A0=A0=20 =A0=A0=A0 = From nobody Mon Mar 19 10:29:42 2018 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 E21EF126C25 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it 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 TU-vsXEA_4NH for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DFAD127333 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1521480576; bh=34xMUlzPcaYXnqT7lf98m0+LinmogwXY2BBz/oUyX64=; l=2582; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=R6dYlMYkANqtqHEpgvGR1KqVk7wL7Vwb9OEi1+QWwe+2m1lIJzdPO2Xs2e8vrovZl MlTIx8KB32xa1mXVSoo3TpNIyRm0jbzkg+DuiQJEetQaFFjcZ5s7VJYw3Q6rAKtpqb YJrtlkbf/5xs/6o4cL/b3G2fCoSZ1ODL3wg+9cOM= Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted) Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:29:36 +0100 id 00000000005DC073.000000005AAFF380.00004C50 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Matthias Leisi References: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> From: Alessandro Vesely Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00 Message-ID: <99872af2-5f67-7690-a24a-b8eec2a5db16@tana.it> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:29:36 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 19 Mar 2018 17:29:41 -0000 On Sun 18/Mar/2018 13:43:56 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely > wrote: > > Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in the new spec? > [...] > > > I'd prefer to do this as its own document.  The current one is feeling very > "kitchen sink" already, and this change has more meat to it than the others > that have been requested. A-R's spec has been a medley of methods since its first appearance. I deem that's very practical, especially compared to an unreferenced, obscure document. Not to mention the cost of issuing an extra RFC just for that method. I posted the xml so as to minimize editorial work on your side, in case you change your mind. >     Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it ; >         dnswl=pass dns.zone=list.dnswl.org >         policy.ip=127.0.9.2 >         policy.txt="ietf.org https://dnswl.org/s/?s=1703" > > > I have a few things I'd like to see done differently in your expired draft: > > * "dnswl" is specifically a whitelist; should we also register "dnsbl"?  Or do > we really need two distinct entries for the same mechanism? My feeling is that dnsbl is not an authentication of any kind. For lists like, for example, Spamhaus SBL, a positive lookup does not identify a sender domain. In addition, MTAs are already plenty of options about whether and how to drop relevant messages. What would be a use case for dnsbl? > * I think "policy.txt" is under-specified.  A downstream agent shouldn't be > expected to know how to decode this, and it can change from one implementation > to the next. Rfc5782 doesn't say much on TXT records from white lists. FWIW, Courier-MTA implementation needs an additional setting to query ANY or TXT rather than just A[*]. I set that because the specific dnswl I use often conveys the domain name in the TXT record, which is consistent with other A-R methods. Should the spec recommend that all lists do so? I added Section 3 in an attempt to accomplish that: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl-07.txt > * Why repeat "policy.ip" for multiple replies, rather than comma-separating the > various replies? No reason, easily changed. Best Ale -- [*] http://www.courier-mta.org/couriertcpd.html#idm140519311889024 Section DNS ACCESS LISTS explains the settings and mentions what will be exported in environment variables. A-R header fields are not documented. From nobody Mon Mar 19 12:14:41 2018 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 50AB8126C83 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.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 0XxWGBjWKQJi for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2388212025C for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.10.41] (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id w2JJESIT044946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com w2JJESIT044946 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1521486874; bh=or3vIsl9zrUa5aFGwace0uBs7sWHkkw4KOoH4E51t5c=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YV5qvFgJMXat0cQdIkm/4qYc0+IzArKhX9ClduNxI6NbHgmgmKPJLpaGDgkjhvYzK 9dfXMlC7q0ppHeezKS2KHZwimvfi4tG+HhRXHjC+sARjaW5qywQWZ1hQUZkuvnQQJ3 5k4Nt3a5MU2i5gJ7aOz/c5thZRhUxfZ6cCR+QAYogcqsGGv0V3uK6n8TCSF0Z5fpH7 btbc0aIL2Kb4SWYJwBeXHjZzcEyvU3mhn3iJ4A1Y9hHKqr42HqiD6NMxuhIA2RxQBE KRZZsZLKUtvsQ66KPug6yzbQubhtHi6EBpA2QWtcCF2oepU20XyJPRCtuPURnlHQpz urxlIn8/FCpgQ== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be [10.10.10.41] To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> From: Steven M Jones Organization: Crash Computing Message-ID: <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:30 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 19 Mar 2018 19:14:40 -0000 I want to thank Yasutaka san for presenting the Virtual DMARC proposal. I believe the situation he and his colleagues are addressing would benefit from more attention. The meeting materials at IETF do not seem to include Yasutaka san's slides. If I didn't just miss it, would it be possible to share that presentation? Aside from changes to the "dmarc=" allowed values in Authentication-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the session - the underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style alignment checks in the absence of a DMARC policy record. That practice may be useful to the receiver's evaluation of SPF and DKIM results. Perhaps that should be explored as a receiver/authenticator best practice. It may be _very_ useful to capture these statistics to make it clearer to domain-owners/senders that more current email traffic would pass DMARC checks than they may presently realize. I would definitely like to explore that further. But DMARC is based on cooperation between domain-owner/sender and authenticator/receiver. And it depends on the explicit opt-in/request-for-treatment from the domain-owner, signaled by a public DNS record, and the reporting mechanisms so that the domain-owner/sender can correct errors in implementation of authentication measures. Virtual DMARC seems to be discussing only what happens within the authenticator/receiver, but perhaps I have missed this part. I look forward to re-reading the proposal and slides with this in mind. --Steve. Steve Jones DMARC.org, LinkedIn, crash.com, etc. From nobody Mon Mar 19 14:02:27 2018 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 4D79712711D for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:02:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=officerakuten.onmicrosoft.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 i4mWjRF898qC for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-hk2apc01on0096.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.124.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4F2127058 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=OFFICERAKUTEN.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rakuten-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=56qs24yp1Hhrwv2Bc+GX1LErbTKl+PkYJ9+gze9XUAA=; b=Y1QRkN1YFEFZySZdt5rcnlP2GpGeDMg5JZS9lfUDubWvn9ssR182El7S3FKLKRfn49MkoaSoJzn7DbxeHkKlV2ijRF45D5MPLnx1JmpYqEllHmm5J/EOecfMGrSPHlQlQLRsU8vlMl+F4y2QIbx6RefLL3U9okpmVpbqDNfuAn4= Received: from HK2PR03MB0673.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.161.186.22) by HK2PR03MB0532.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.177.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.609.6; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:02:15 +0000 Received: from HK2PR03MB0673.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9d0c:f009:239e:5fd3]) by HK2PR03MB0673.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9d0c:f009:239e:5fd3%10]) with mapi id 15.20.0609.007; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:02:15 +0000 From: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" To: Steven M Jones , "dmarc@ietf.org" CC: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 Thread-Index: AQHTte1NZwluylSpg0ekDSDbqtpQJaPIeXKAgAkXENCABnCmAIAAHP7w Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:02:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> In-Reply-To: <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=genki.yasutaka@rakuten.com; x-originating-ip: [31.133.147.115] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HK2PR03MB0532; 7:SfmNHSctfWOMUJWY6wgHOwKztAcyk7bPjGIiLWkrrwwHRsL958pGxYtEMKbYQZwi3LpMm6qUXKBbw2ivgkT0hpI5nC17Q+9yRQftoCTe3UgWlZJLHftxmYYFlJhIQGiAKtxfZKEwSRi3yJjNQ0IZr8xpDSUcn32QHv8A5kGm0ZOcn9MsCn+SMlM+0BWU/GyaA0yNt/iJ/QbGE4JdFgSkX1L9ZkMtcgLscj5Gr4jv9/2dka3qM5X3aOSW1nxAj7Y/; 20: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 x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;SOR; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: cd2ad8b6-6a70-4464-9345-08d58ddcb1ba x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:HK2PR03MB0532; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK2PR03MB0532: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(116415991822766)(83146419253472)(211171220733660); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231221)(944501244)(52105095)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:HK2PR03MB0532; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HK2PR03MB0532; x-forefront-prvs: 06167FAD59 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(39380400002)(366004)(51414003)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(9686003)(93886005)(7696005)(97736004)(2906002)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(2950100002)(26005)(86362001)(229853002)(186003)(66066001)(4326008)(478600001)(6116002)(3660700001)(316002)(106356001)(25786009)(8936002)(3846002)(105586002)(102836004)(53936002)(2900100001)(3280700002)(59450400001)(966005)(68736007)(45080400002)(53546011)(6506007)(561944003)(7736002)(345774005)(33656002)(107886003)(99286004)(305945005)(6246003)(5660300001)(74316002)(6436002)(2501003)(110136005)(76176011)(55016002)(14454004)(6306002)(5250100002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HK2PR03MB0532; H:HK2PR03MB0673.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: rakuten.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: mdgwB8GXs3pnCRyOAPKuq/iOFX+51I8xGWGMtiKPhqvWydgBWQAJeeljbAcb2kDNIA7fN2sigrk6WqJe9KkF0Csuhn0bfE7f5Eu4oFjLMyBDhVafUutl7QPt7JqLAI2wIkVoOLQLNVTwVtidRe4y0WaGDu697PZRHIEcgr/Qc9jhwAwd43bM5wFqUnszwgvuMpTXCng50ge1V1Mj/Vy5LJBVpG6pjlj+gDF5LqYgagAuFmO2PeuDRxdkISuONvkQrFTiRhCRNZl6zgfU9cvOBSNZRcs8Gj6qeWQ9EY+LeUP5FIVQag2sCSdRm9Zta18qULojd46R2MLDqvKOQmGnpQ== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: rakuten.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cd2ad8b6-6a70-4464-9345-08d58ddcb1ba X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Mar 2018 21:02:15.5503 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 53a8b0d9-d900-48cc-9d7e-5935dc8d5b17 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2PR03MB0532 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 19 Mar 2018 21:02:26 -0000 Hi Steven, Thank you for your comment. You can download from the following link. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda.html - Virtual DMARC: DMARC verification without record definitions I will send you directly just in case. Regards, Genki --- Genki YASUTAKA Rakuten, Inc. Mail: genki.yasutaka@rakuten.com -----Original Message----- From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steven M Jones Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:15 AM To: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 I want to thank Yasutaka san for presenting the Virtual DMARC proposal.=20 I believe the situation he and his colleagues are addressing would benefit = from more attention. The meeting materials at IETF do not seem to include Yasutaka san's slides.= If I didn't just miss it, would it be possible to share that presentation? Aside from changes to the "dmarc=3D" allowed values in Authentication-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the se= ssion - the underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style alignment c= hecks in the absence of a DMARC policy record. That practice may be useful to the receiver's evaluation of SPF and DKIM re= sults. Perhaps that should be explored as a receiver/authenticator best pra= ctice. It may be _very_ useful to capture these statistics to make it clear= er to domain-owners/senders that more current email traffic would pass DMAR= C checks than they may presently realize. I would definitely like to explor= e that further. But DMARC is based on cooperation between domain-owner/sender and authentic= ator/receiver. And it depends on the explicit opt-in/request-for-treatment = from the domain-owner, signaled by a public DNS record, and the reporting m= echanisms so that the domain-owner/sender can correct errors in implementat= ion of authentication measures. Virtual DMARC seems to be discussing only what happens within the authentic= ator/receiver, but perhaps I have missed this part. I look forward to re-re= ading the proposal and slides with this in mind. --Steve. Steve Jones DMARC.org, LinkedIn, crash.com, etc. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From nobody Mon Mar 19 14:17:46 2018 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 E54DB1270A0 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=VRRE7VhS; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: unsupported version)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=MKsku+Fb 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 lx3fJHolgLWv for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CC01200A0 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:17:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1521494261; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=k6NCMK1k/G9udp0XjcxyJN/MrvFvAvVU5d5a4GmDIQk=; b=VRRE7VhSno6eqb9i1pMhrQMDfMNmOT5iHAm0eUxm1lYO5lNcQqeH9LfE Z0a2nsdb6l10NwdreV+IubauGvGRDQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1521494261; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=k6NCMK1k/G9udp0XjcxyJN/MrvFvAvVU5d5a4GmDIQk=; b=MKsku+FbgXmiWzofnpPLGB6wwkMyKtf/J3KuWOjTHAvXYstqmKyp9nFR 6FLJWIDWbN42x3aU5ZqPcERWs+tCPGgszxykolMcvxwlvMHK8cky7zxwDs qzx9Ar+BA625jcCZtO4Cu4r1Bg62zzitzqUvYAjVrfmR3cZa40sLGpt1m+ hARxsGS5dm5cDsG4cobT3RXLYWOYMVOhFwP7dqhLCUR1kGbGiF+BAKe06s tgDoxOvLJwjU7B+fWXfOnnb+pNNKAGPz0JqenUU3QUedOJfbbbDIctuhpS 3gIzAwNCeBK6MQoWm1jbcHHQ3/F+QgaJ1Fq5sfVOAGcyu6YpLN4j9A== Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95557C4026D for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:17:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:17:40 -0400 Message-ID: <3441720.hKJZRnDj7p@kitterma-e6430> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-139-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 19 Mar 2018 21:17:45 -0000 Since SPF "Best Guess" is mentioned ... This was developed very, very early in the SPF project to help bootstrap the protocol when not very many domains published records. When the original SPF RFC, RFC 4408, was developed, it was considered for standardization and the judgment of the community was that it was not suitable for standardization. Fundamentally, both SPF "Best Guess" and "Virtual DMARC" destroy the opt-in nature of SPF and DMARC and should be considered harmful. If an entity wants to apply this kind of test, it's a purely internal policy decision. No RFC needed. Authentication Results already provides for documenting policy results. No need for trying to shoehorn this into DMARC results. It's not a DMARC result. This is not only not opt-in, there's no opt-out mechanism. Please don't do this (same as last time this came up - yes, I did check the slides to see if anything has changed and it hasn't). Scott K On Monday, March 19, 2018 09:02:15 PM Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Thank you for your comment. > > You can download from the following link. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda.html > > - Virtual DMARC: DMARC verification without record definitions > > I will send you directly just in case. > > Regards, > Genki > > --- > Genki YASUTAKA > > Rakuten, Inc. > Mail: genki.yasutaka@rakuten.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steven M Jones > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:15 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 > > I want to thank Yasutaka san for presenting the Virtual DMARC proposal. > I believe the situation he and his colleagues are addressing would benefit > from more attention. > > The meeting materials at IETF do not seem to include Yasutaka san's slides. > If I didn't just miss it, would it be possible to share that presentation? > > Aside from changes to the "dmarc=" allowed values in > Authentication-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the > session - the underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style alignment > checks in the absence of a DMARC policy record. > > That practice may be useful to the receiver's evaluation of SPF and DKIM > results. Perhaps that should be explored as a receiver/authenticator best > practice. It may be _very_ useful to capture these statistics to make it > clearer to domain-owners/senders that more current email traffic would pass > DMARC checks than they may presently realize. I would definitely like to > explore that further. > > But DMARC is based on cooperation between domain-owner/sender and > authenticator/receiver. And it depends on the explicit > opt-in/request-for-treatment from the domain-owner, signaled by a public > DNS record, and the reporting mechanisms so that the domain-owner/sender > can correct errors in implementation of authentication measures. > > Virtual DMARC seems to be discussing only what happens within the > authenticator/receiver, but perhaps I have missed this part. I look forward > to re-reading the proposal and slides with this in mind. > > --Steve. > > Steve Jones > DMARC.org, LinkedIn, crash.com, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From nobody Mon Mar 19 14:35:43 2018 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 020EA12D951 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.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 Ac_sYGDrz_Of for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22BE12D94E for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shiny.crash.com (70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id w2JLZP3G046950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com w2JLZP3G046950 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1521495335; bh=MbAitmB+bOq7CLG8cTh9KLpDy14+MfrqlepEZbVCCXs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=o0Foro//SX5+iGVLLxinZOfLudjzhPMemyWv1Ocvj0Xlym83PAdxsqChXggkPrIHi ZVmtGwTvXa3/bRjqyYa7a3zU3/RJ04NG4SsE/sDAvBhu97VTFaDr15WvajCCK9D5S0 KqrsxGdm4mW2cqUn1xbYd+s0c2o7gqfDI5OgZ2RSVGzHr4ijREGDGbKN4SrStpTEN8 Mjt/5/VPAFYGrz+dUOxUghANZ76fPh9Pg3ldlhQE0pBPXlC/RCG5TSTaWNXKDJaQMW SKrniJFTtiSdjY5svSYGH3tMKvSouc+roCzT+xUsgdKYQFmMMDWl6jl0tsUvTkDVa5 NTvaU3kqUuP6Q== X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com [70.36.157.26] claimed to be shiny.crash.com To: dmarc@ietf.org References: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> From: Steven M Jones Message-ID: <9ee30c1e-22f8-d8e1-a776-ece0a25a943b@crash.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 19 Mar 2018 21:35:42 -0000 On 3/19/18 2:02 PM, Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS wrote: > > > You can download from the following link. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda.html > > - Virtual DMARC: DMARC verification without record definitions > > I will send you directly just in case. > Thank you, I found it -- I had used the "download meeting materials as PDF" link, which didn't include either slide deck, but I found the slides under the "Show meeting materials" link. To the list, in the (unlikely?) event I'm not the only one... --S. From nobody Mon Mar 19 18:11:57 2018 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 7767312D95C for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:55 -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 CBAz1HzAgkkG for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 BC466124C27 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e5-v6so24210753lfb.7 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LCIYg4ILZ+LgqFnEZSPoOrfTgvNy4/lf9S/GJMkgXpw=; b=hLsp+QMbRGvZe04qCOIQn7w2B3jbU4Kle9YJuPuslLppW92SidP4RuQyuOckjYFHEX /Wg3t++XtACmdDTtxCXbqYCwQ9uIDFPlRJsgl9KSl8KAxmCZMLqXaZfkTejw+TTWqiTE KH0ira/mTdQcBhK/6iNg+4JAhs5xK2/KSZJLa8NSSMtAwCSQo2dFXC0up01s7l8uIbJK EdMFil47pqGdT452oIF2tSjZl1lDdqXjCSZ5cQSbsalWuuWM+STxyhOPe8olfcW+MBzL Iw3YS60kxE9LDP/lveQcwHaSfIi6r7BaVNO8cx9iLB7rpXyk9X+z5Wa+RfgH6idZ0eEU NluA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LCIYg4ILZ+LgqFnEZSPoOrfTgvNy4/lf9S/GJMkgXpw=; b=oStBto0cMrvL9VeJADts3AH9uYWeRdYh8wirOrBqNfw8lZa1gbiXOEcIEZBze81JmF 0fY/+cHH9RS3ZeF7ZnVx1l9pFoOGQ/LLRnlafiF5ky766+rrUo7KTWUNkLIla0Mw2LeR cb3tsCqbpvXfujYePivwlzN8Nb0fbs+Jf80PsJiBrp5LJLGXAh6sPr/Dym6/214TZjra T/0SHvQtXtT4ejG2WzLbgffdgnMupZ2yhrrVelupl8ejRclsh/Ik+x3tdfh6qsOG8EFt iGsWC1gLSy7vK9eT/zE5cxGa0UL8CLd5AJG+lnuGfWcl4GKbabIOr7+6ltMp34NHDowR D+JA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GZuX0iKN8sPjE7cB88gPh0XGe27szkGKZeZsl7KjDE0pznaXuG xMvtKsNkFugMPJIyjuQxJ6vWIqdYUOLG3hLE/7Sv6TcJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsfWn9qFB8nPx3suV/2nVtBjIO3QDpr0kOpHb8iKIvYTHSA4HigdajFAmWVQMsG9icSMUyb/lrN5ZiKMDhYfEA= X-Received: by 10.46.80.90 with SMTP id v26mr9770211ljd.140.1521508310879; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.66.82 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <99872af2-5f67-7690-a24a-b8eec2a5db16@tana.it> References: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> <99872af2-5f67-7690-a24a-b8eec2a5db16@tana.it> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:11:50 +0000 Message-ID: To: Alessandro Vesely Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Matthias Leisi Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045fc1bc64949b0567cdc264" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:11:55 -0000 --f403045fc1bc64949b0567cdc264 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Sun 18/Mar/2018 13:43:56 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely > > wrote: > > > > Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in the new spec? > > [...] > > > > > > I'd prefer to do this as its own document. The current one is feeling > very > > "kitchen sink" already, and this change has more meat to it than the > others > > that have been requested. > > A-R's spec has been a medley of methods since its first appearance. I deem > that's very practical, especially compared to an unreferenced, obscure > document. Not to mention the cost of issuing an extra RFC just for that > method. I posted the xml so as to minimize editorial work on your side, in > case you change your mind. > There are some that have been part of the base A-R specs (DKIM, SPF) but some that have not (VBR, SMIME, RRVS). I think this one warrants a separate specification. You already have the draft. > I have a few things I'd like to see done differently in your expired > draft: > > > > * "dnswl" is specifically a whitelist; should we also register "dnsbl"? > Or do > > we really need two distinct entries for the same mechanism? > > My feeling is that dnsbl is not an authentication of any kind. For lists > like, > for example, Spamhaus SBL, a positive lookup does not identify a sender > domain. > In addition, MTAs are already plenty of options about whether and how to > drop > relevant messages. What would be a use case for dnsbl? > I don't see a difference. If you don't do a flat accept on a dnswl hit and instead want to provide the information to some inner agent that can evaluate it, then you have to accept the idea that someone might want to do the same thing on a dnsbl hit (or a DKIM failure, or an SPF failure, etc.). > > * I think "policy.txt" is under-specified. A downstream agent shouldn't > be > > expected to know how to decode this, and it can change from one > implementation > > to the next. > > Rfc5782 doesn't say much on TXT records from white lists. FWIW, > Courier-MTA > implementation needs an additional setting to query ANY or TXT rather than > just > A[*]. I set that because the specific dnswl I use often conveys the domain > name in the TXT record, which is consistent with other A-R methods. > One of the purposes of A-R since the beginning is to spare downstream agents from having to do any more parsing. Passing a raw TXT reply is antithetical to that purpose. What would you do with this downstream? Should the spec recommend that all lists do so? I added Section 3 in an > attempt to accomplish that: > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl-07.txt > > > * Why repeat "policy.ip" for multiple replies, rather than > comma-separating the > > various replies? > > No reason, easily changed. > You added "Multiple entries MAY be arranged in a comma-separated list", but I don't think that contributes to interoperability. You should be normative here. -MSK --f403045fc1bc64949b0567cdc264 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@t= ana.it> wrote:
On Sun 18/Mar/20= 18 13:43:56 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it
> <mailto:v= esely@tana.it>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in th= e new spec?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[...]
>
>
> I'd prefer to do this as its own document.=C2=A0 The current one i= s feeling very
> "kitchen sink" already, and this change has more meat to it = than the others
> that have been requested.

A-R's spec has been a medley of methods since its first appearan= ce.=C2=A0 I deem
that's very practical, especially compared to an unreferenced, obscure<= br> document.=C2=A0 Not to mention the cost of issuing an extra RFC just for th= at
method.=C2=A0 I posted the xml so as to minimize editorial work on your sid= e, in
case you change your mind.

There are so= me that have been part of the base A-R specs (DKIM, SPF) but some that have= not (VBR, SMIME, RRVS).=C2=A0 I think this one warrants a separate specifi= cation.

You already have the draft.
<= div>
> I have a= few things I'd like to see done differently in your expired draft:
>
> * "dnswl" is specifically a whitelist; should we also regist= er "dnsbl"?=C2=A0 Or do
> we really need two distinct entries for the same mechanism?

My feeling is that dnsbl is not an authentication of any kind.=C2=A0= For lists like,
for example, Spamhaus SBL, a positive lookup does not identify a sender dom= ain.
=C2=A0In addition, MTAs are already plenty of options about whether and how= to drop
relevant messages.=C2=A0 What would be a use case for dnsbl?

I don't see a difference.=C2=A0 If you don't = do a flat accept on a dnswl hit and instead want to provide the information= to some inner agent that can evaluate it, then you have to accept the idea= that someone might want to do the same thing on a dnsbl hit (or a DKIM fai= lure, or an SPF failure, etc.).
=C2=A0
> * I think "policy.txt" is under-specified.= =C2=A0 A downstream agent shouldn't be
> expected to know how to decode this, and it can change from one implem= entation
> to the next.

Rfc5782 doesn't say much on TXT records from white lists.=C2=A0 = FWIW, Courier-MTA
implementation needs an additional setting to query ANY or TXT rather than = just
A[*].=C2=A0 I set that because the specific dnswl I use often conveys the d= omain
name in the TXT record, which is consistent with other A-R methods.

One of the purposes of A-R since the beginning= is to spare downstream agents from having to do any more parsing.=C2=A0=C2= =A0 Passing a raw TXT reply is antithetical to that purpose.=C2=A0 What wou= ld you do with this downstream?

Should the spec recommend that all lists do so?=C2=A0 I added Section 3 in = an
attempt to accomplish that:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl-07.txt

> * Why repeat "policy.ip" for multiple replies, rather than c= omma-separating the
> various replies?

No reason, easily changed.

You a= dded "Multiple entries MAY be arranged in a comma-separated list", b= ut I don't think that contributes to interoperability.=C2=A0 You should= be normative here.

-MSK
--f403045fc1bc64949b0567cdc264-- From nobody Tue Mar 20 02:35:52 2018 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 489FB1242F7 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:51 -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 bZDWUngNHKj7 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 A61B5120721 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p142-v6so1466273lfd.6 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=gDlmMtbnRPMVbEaWJvgw3GIfZzMo04jz9MOrFJABxbc=; b=GL1Sok1mym72UJcUNXvlikwr9FWaGVmbtagOk8itpWcJzaJO5nD0rmQC2KAy/6Djfh MhbGw5LTqEyp9bI+n79MZu7a5TMVhsYGyS9WrbV2PKYwjT5pfBRdb5WCBTzIAnGfT2Ty WxZzCKrupb/GxIrt0ovzFj7OkcBW7wfAUNIiY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gDlmMtbnRPMVbEaWJvgw3GIfZzMo04jz9MOrFJABxbc=; b=qECW0+p6ne113yXcyjK8XX61UeRgmdGI4fGpzYU/t5eY1RpQJF1nIdI0EsW9Mgkhlb CHC2+UAGFVDteYMOhrltgekL3WklDOPudjzOKFcp7KphHGimlnBCO+rD9a+MP2ktxPCo FJI5GqtFz77LebVPq0UHLxFbnr5yzoDBD1yZBpvj0R0sTt+INLLxo+G8VlJhoMClLKGA TFDzkaUtCiNsqC5J6/OcCHVQ/CPN8bgXGSflv38FPjdxIHGfzgqrOv8ZsPGUEE+CGsd8 bfep+/Jt+1pALWkMYX2rMxPwZv3GgjYaYTtVCqdLQA/qlP8h8oxZCaThwuIps/TbK0l6 iErg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7ENWmIPkYsRckACFrMnk6xijfOqpQ8mecE72qIU7VV++qp40k2u OxRE1ffUPG/s71Chpw4NEHUCBNAsqGkdO2vjQdzrP/5y X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtFRzE+AnHxNWKSi/iyxIRCjCeXtgkZUsuk8X6JLr3EdwjAZGW3iz39ZbmsITmNAHHAy3JZ0/JGdyaPDkl1gzQ= X-Received: by 10.46.124.8 with SMTP id x8mr9863091ljc.121.1521538546490; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> References: <5AA30505.6080901@isdg.net> <401ecb2f-6dae-24d3-06dc-fa91584844cd@crash.com> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:35:45 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: x2wasQTvLgILAka_imqYmGL92Mg Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e8075a14939bba0567d4ccb2" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:35:51 -0000 --f4f5e8075a14939bba0567d4ccb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > I want to thank Yasutaka san for presenting the Virtual DMARC proposal. I > believe the situation he and his colleagues are addressing would benefit > from more attention. > > Aside from changes to the "dmarc=" allowed values in > Authentication-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the > session - the underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style alignment > checks in the absence of a DMARC policy record. In some hallway discussion after the session yesterday, we discussed the assertion (made during the meeting) that all of the necessary information to evaluate alignment is already present within the headers on a message. While that is true for the initial receiver, there are scenarios for intermediated mail where the 5322.From may be modified (for instance, SRS processing) and as such, the alignment of the original message may not be able to be deduced by downstream MTAs. It may be worthwhile to consider earmarking the 5322.From domain into ARC's AAR header to cover such a scenario. Whether that information should also be recorded into the A-R header is less clear. I think it is pretty clear that this is not and can not be "DMARC" without sender participation, but alignment of identifiers can certainly be recorded for downstream usage. --Kurt --f4f5e8075a14939bba0567d4ccb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> wr= ote:
I want to thank Yasutaka san for pre= senting the Virtual DMARC proposal. I believe the situation he and his coll= eagues are addressing would benefit from more attention.

Aside from changes to the "dmarc=3D" allowed values in Authentica= tion-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the session - th= e underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style alignment checks in t= he absence of a DMARC policy record.

In som= e hallway discussion after the session yesterday, we discussed the assertio= n (made during the meeting) that all of the necessary information to evalua= te alignment is already present within the headers on a message. While that= is true for the initial receiver, there are scenarios for intermediated ma= il where the 5322.From may be modified (for instance, SRS processing) and a= s such, the alignment of the original message may not be able to be deduced= by downstream MTAs. It may be worthwhile to consider earmarking the 5322.F= rom domain into ARC's AAR header to cover such a scenario. Whether that= information should also be recorded into the A-R header is less clear.

I think it is pretty clear that this is not and can n= ot be "DMARC" without sender participation, but alignment of iden= tifiers can certainly be recorded for downstream usage.

--Kurt=C2=A0

--f4f5e8075a14939bba0567d4ccb2-- From nobody Tue Mar 20 04:47:42 2018 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 4AF9D127419 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:47:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it 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 SRlkTkkFgiEa for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE7FF126DED for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1521546458; bh=L0u30e3uCsj44WJ7BgXoCAPMbAE1Sn1cSTv8BJJ49NE=; l=1381; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Uubfzgi6CE5xyBeu6WNpqsv8+SRVvfgCWDS7DExSeIPfAT8Mz9qPTcniBSgQ4HKX2 8Z4pAT5ILzHX6XVr7mo75EjOUV/XSNak4ifpxZxViMnI57Y0+dekRd0quX0Z2hTRaT F21ADEkADuZqudVa62QuvwEzgESWiOHZViPfpBSk= Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted) Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:47:38 +0100 id 00000000005DC050.000000005AB0F4DA.0000636D To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Matthias Leisi References: <98102864-2dee-c133-f625-7b66976f7519@tana.it> <99872af2-5f67-7690-a24a-b8eec2a5db16@tana.it> From: Alessandro Vesely Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:47:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] OT: Yet another addition to dmarc-rfc7601bis-00 X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:47:41 -0000 On Tue 20/Mar/2018 02:11:50 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On Sun 18/Mar/2018 13:43:56 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Alessandro Vesely >> > wrote: >>> >>> Would it be possible to insert a dnswl method in the new spec? >>> [...] >>> >>> I'd prefer to do this as its own document. The current one is feeling very >>> "kitchen sink" already, and this change has more meat to it than the others >>> that have been requested. >> >> A-R's spec has been a medley of methods since its first appearance. I deem >> that's very practical, especially compared to an unreferenced, obscure >> document. Not to mention the cost of issuing an extra RFC just for that >> method. I posted the xml so as to minimize editorial work on your side, in >> case you change your mind. > > There are some that have been part of the base A-R specs (DKIM, SPF) but > some that have not (VBR, SMIME, RRVS). I think this one warrants a > separate specification. > > You already have the draft. In that case, I'll wait for rfc7601bis to be published and then try and see how individual submission works. This WG ought to be unburdened of further OT discussion, so I reply privately to the rest of your message. Ale From nobody Tue Mar 20 10:11:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A471277BB; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.75.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:11:08 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:11:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. Title : Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status Author : Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt Pages : 48 Date : 2018-03-20 Abstract: This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Mar 20 10:13:25 2018 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 3918F129C6B for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:18 -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 cEA2DRw5B4v3 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C5CE1242EA for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p142-v6so3738157lfd.6 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=N7Hw45rXAOToSnSH0bGzPz0CMxvhChR530SOjjs3AIY=; b=te8W/kN+sIQrPY2FurdDKEgRR7whs4V24BS+3HeElQCPc0jU6skCWB9W5mkApT8za9 BKvrOYjELzL7SU4x9nLYwwEHkSAdzqqD7J0FoL0cENVQOKtF4CntAxkVME8wKwqY4C+m mxUrCYd0ZsH83/tL4Gs6J3tV58OXhwuyFlfE7rGFywCHrP6hZbzvgbP/V8bFxZ5g8CCr qnWZ6wdqI7/CbxXwHQFYDoHkvchK9QIZz2CzRMS0DAK1v+tsCHJ9D/PlGsxplz3/3YSp KMkNfYN1OQiy4LSUuu4GrsYsvlkimw4gAr6/aGlvLcB9/FVH8M6tfFFHQuDG7SnXXUQe M2AA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=N7Hw45rXAOToSnSH0bGzPz0CMxvhChR530SOjjs3AIY=; b=Mj6rxcT21P2aj2WHJSxi4985W9mZOWwKAW0OgjB53y+bbR536nWaFxX51j2FhtDgGO co9UGrm0Yz8XWuipHBvIe25SLakQoOAxfOJcc0Ve46jMichQ2DkTwIQu5QI5OBPItLEE xBjn2QfyvQE6KHb2G/7RbQBE9q+BXFzLhy5K1sj59uiPAxwTx4aY2ZZfRvZPVInUh884 kRIF2lDX8SHAE09opAFskF2mxXmqVoVQoev1buooOpKgmiubVKyQMvwkjJjv139ZOrb6 JQm8K299YUypmfECWcpdSEBoI/A3HKAawVogyosv/g7cpsEdTKdw6dAa3OjWp91X3RgY Fdxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7G3cNhBN8GQ88I2fCWNDOLnr13E3OyARz+yDDs0GPV0ZEGe3eGd XPkidthPtEUczC+L9Bjh42+YpeOvysaO/C1cBH7A4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtSrPq5yq5W2YRcYLEFtY7sq+cB5wzoQ52g9UWemKWDjV0XQ34NUoptOLJoUiaPJfF5LspNFdA6217z3adXdiU= X-Received: by 10.46.23.70 with SMTP id l67mr11037952lje.132.1521565994038; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.66.82 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:13:13 +0000 Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114af28a93bbff0567db305b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:13:21 -0000 --001a114af28a93bbff0567db305b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:11 PM, wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, > Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > Title : Message Header Field for Indicating Message > Authentication Status > Author : Murray S. Kucherawy > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt > Pages : 48 > Date : 2018-03-20 > > Abstract: > This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- > Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results > of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such > as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field > to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users > or to make sorting and filtering decisions. > This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part" is not left in a good state by these changes. Those of you in the WG with clue about EAI, please help me sort this out, since I do not fall into that category. -MSK --001a114af28a93bbff0567db305b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:11 PM, <internet-drafts= @ietf.org> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is availa= ble from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Repor= ting & Conformance WG of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Author=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Murr= ay S. Kucherawy
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-iet= f-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 48
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2018-03-20

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document specifies a message header field called Authenti= cation-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the = results
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of message authentication efforts.=C2=A0 Any receiver-side sof= tware, such
=C2=A0 =C2=A0as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this heade= r field
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way t= o users
=C2=A0 =C2=A0or to make sorting and filtering decisions.

This includes a registration for "header.a" and= John's changes to support EAI.=C2=A0 However, Barry has some concerns = with how "local-part" is not left in a good state by these change= s.=C2=A0 Those of you in the WG with clue about EAI, please help me sort th= is out, since I do not fall into that category.

-MSK
<= /div>
--001a114af28a93bbff0567db305b-- From nobody Tue Mar 20 15:50:44 2018 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 D8FDA127058 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=V6Hd9JUZ; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: unsupported version)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=NTjmZafy 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 cr7qqKJYnzZ5 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8271200B9 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:50:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1521586240; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=KOpAyDrZeh6i9oFCyFJ0ENMYLYDb2JsfxDXyn2XWRwk=; b=V6Hd9JUZwxzTOhvVGyAXFlZ9kpzQbtHH8c7i0dmL4CpeXtKicStmyGOy eeZtmvsGXEhInCQpODLADWjvMlXqAg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1521586240; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=KOpAyDrZeh6i9oFCyFJ0ENMYLYDb2JsfxDXyn2XWRwk=; b=NTjmZafyHMLjmrsqQ1cgLOcBDnwGH7vwj96zS0qXFnUzUBUTjMq1VO2h DFx+hwi2I4YcClslcuucKp5oz0BhJ0bNoDFw+l0qYvsWkD91FMgpnry8HD nFuW9QwTaG/OPWFXZKmdu8hSBvV4Le1dPzc60WHMwfHAs3P9vjeK6pPwmP Rx6YNQjEZ2Mkgds/1ecesO0t6alLgudyy67oOzU2SoVzxNq8W8ljlXWVPH I2EmEa4TCYzuARQLsaUiYCuHgOM0C5bMOinXIpI1DmykaenBRC8uktDvnY cKAHN5YOsGV10U/hXrD2nl/mfeVDc3ZVJ4oDTlYG2NzmpUL4nBMBCQ== Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58B51C402C6 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:50:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:50:39 -0400 Message-ID: <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-139-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:50:44 -0000 On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 05:13:13 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:11 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, > > Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > > > Title : Message Header Field for Indicating Message > > > > Authentication Status > > > > Author : Murray S. Kucherawy > > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt > > Pages : 48 > > Date : 2018-03-20 > > > > Abstract: > > This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- > > Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results > > of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such > > as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field > > to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users > > or to make sorting and filtering decisions. > > This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support > EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part" is not left in > a good state by these changes. Those of you in the WG with clue about EAI, > please help me sort this out, since I do not fall into that category. > > -MSK In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that's important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can do another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overhead for not very much more. Scott K From nobody Tue Mar 20 16:39:00 2018 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 91DFC12EA64 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5tWU78hWkq3m for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x234.google.com (mail-ot0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::234]) (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 5BAAB12D77E for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x234.google.com with SMTP id m7-v6so3747521otd.1 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:38:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JMQf1ZfPrULFloZUa5a9Vv3djlkIAUX9fw/xMCsHqlU=; b=q/D5L0tAUttKtKKOE+GLFASDaeTbfJ1fD72k8cPXaKBZ7+FZthLcdBcXxzE7Sgdrog wyc5vz88u97p4r5MdGB7Wlq6ZBFqcI5NzJlvXxkX2jrHNHSZZfdqepBPCjVWu9QmlKti /bobCLT3qNelKGSjLEXiv0BB1Rlnv/cbXDqwrTh/+N3NN3cECBufDvSV1dbvCvOgQ8AP N2o7x9m1CvTkGSFi8gz6oCEopfB8c3B4mkaxUVOggbeRBXhB84tk6qyDpjoPtCnQZN5w vh1AKIDPg6DfOv58X4FIWCYmUhlFbI46IiSp6Bmk9OTvyvOLfCDAZJKxiCG7ByjNj9Q/ bMCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=JMQf1ZfPrULFloZUa5a9Vv3djlkIAUX9fw/xMCsHqlU=; b=MQz6Akcd3S7Xd6u+CUNwPGOzDll9izWaZ0GYwbVnFrr2nH8Lp7A2JnukvVdWb/Z+ne TF940Ek5BEeye1TMVLm299g6gCNLuJM8BDoMVF6k+vFOfGTCrl3dXRnud7CpXiue9G8j 4ssGGhX8uLrK68+gdvBYYPN4A+Yc3OnDcogXzlmvae03Ok7VezudHWwDtljI/f5rfobM YV2uKLaL1Z5etGUsdaujo+BFRxWpZRjClAvPGX1ENC5GQgwH3HinTMQtlTdyzbiDqUYl MA5B/5AMYqYOKFsjkw6LeD1Rdr5x0YNIDoPtAyponxEIDiYXsEade5mVPvVpqW5z4ycF p/AA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GrSgLsNE5Jwz1mh41GsubjkgHeTNCwbn3uUbWbAlMtUYatOyua g4ruWcRdzUgaNsD/oHbz2kJ6A8D64aKRZ0bOAMwKQAXI X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuX6zB7PqAmXvT7QqYdmHtKXM8iSENDuoF1CMY2ixj7xHGakmPLVp9uv5sUiX6ZpHKvWa7VQbI7s1U38zYeCXM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3d86:: with SMTP id l6-v6mr10702782otc.213.1521589132435; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:38:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> In-Reply-To: <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> From: Seth Blank Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:38:40 +0000 Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbbcc90567e09322" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:38:59 -0000 --000000000000bbbcc90567e09322 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed we should do header.s here instead of in ARC as per DCRUP conversation so that it=E2=80=99s registered standards track vs experimenta= l. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that= 's > important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can > do > another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process > overhead > for not very much more. > --000000000000bbbcc90567e09322 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Agreed we should do header.s here instead of in ARC = as per DCRUP conversation so that it=E2=80=99s registered standards track v= s experimental.

On Tue, Mar 20, 20= 18 at 3:50 PM Scott Kitterman <s= klist@kitterman.com> wrote:
In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector).=C2=A0 I think t= hat's
important for troubleshooting.=C2=A0 Is there a reason you left it out?=C2= =A0 I can do
another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overh= ead
for not very much more.
--000000000000bbbcc90567e09322-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 05:44:27 2018 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 B9F8012D82F for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EHAHeRYmmbMP for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (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 29DC4124234 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x205-v6so7640070lfa.0 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PIdQwelc65lY2ei6LP0J64dl9GFpjmgu/Uz5YHbVWN8=; b=eofyeNxqqf1tE/NWPGhtyrU+kHG55QH4mDgvuw4NtcRsufo7j7Y42C3LtfM7g/dTrm 5QlYcziLVVr2h9+lZtxfNfrI3eyVeWL/H44lBYEpyrzA5WKLG4Mz0JemybORDZ5mruE+ qm+tNpl8sSsEHZSyWp0mEWz+CNdpgwmCUmP+sBlbazSTCfWEAs98HhCVKDMOzLfR6/7Z M5gv5w/u1WUK4HRlAOKLBrzAN5fCOV+uJMLaaqrubBqaOXPIEQe8RhZ9EArpTpK/QH0v 3W//BLfd9wExRXWwool+ANAF0PUnuY0gTfw+F4drC+w/SzuIz6P/Ic2xhTt2uELbU2aO gzWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PIdQwelc65lY2ei6LP0J64dl9GFpjmgu/Uz5YHbVWN8=; b=pcWS6rK+9m4odNy0Pd10DWoxpD5rOfpOuIaBMcPeNLRSY/ggTV+AnNxUutl5wO7I2A TjN87f9olXfJf8VbJQQ3OX+emEh1V8wRBuoFny//LdK4Mjd+LcSUd2aMFdDWU28Bo0ch qr6LJQaddjbBO62PPtnxP1iuaP6KeDuQ0jCSwzvwTkjX/6AD4Fr7eqDjsldyZc7EUJjD E03o+n0Jr+47gFzfqfoaSpS4bIUQhZWv/oU2erXJYA4JvOGn+G7RBDypJ21dLxb/0Aeo jWdDXnw71WiGtrrFHcflF1+OtioHI9bXitfKv6uLSgoL+A8i76LTRI/QQyx3EV9JLfir PTQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Herh4OfrdfuUzELSasyZHAjVNh+xwkiredjJvPSk3qM05wdODG 9fbbAwffFD8Z3SKcZpEN3qpazzbBn++9E62MdhqHlg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuyJfaiA1ItJEUP6uvfRbquOE7DC0LfCjalByqSBnE0yr/szw7oSxV6O5A8bjLK8cwDT84MLxtqMQDk9NQZaNE= X-Received: by 2002:a19:5317:: with SMTP id h23-v6mr12204657lfb.6.1521636262217; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.85.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:44:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:44:21 +0000 Message-ID: To: Scott Kitterman Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e30b210567eb8c1f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 12:44:26 -0000 --000000000000e30b210567eb8c1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that's > important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can > do > another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process > overhead > for not very much more. > It's in the base ARC draft. Does it matter which document does it? -MSK --000000000000e30b210567eb8c1f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl= ist@kitterman.com> wrote:
In the diff I sent in,= I also proposed header.s (selector).=C2=A0 I think that's
important for troubleshooting.=C2=A0 Is there a reason you left it out?=C2= =A0 I can do
another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overh= ead
for not very much more.

It's in the= base ARC draft.=C2=A0 Does it matter which document does it?

=
-MSK
--000000000000e30b210567eb8c1f-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 06:50:53 2018 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 9228D12E8D2 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:50:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailforce.net header.b=uFPCJEn2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=mrM6xjqq 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 HWXpHxGh50N3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D618512E8D5 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4884321031 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailforce.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=GHawMbPmgzVsj1XJrKNmzSe8g0J9k +ZnDhaAN+WTI8A=; b=uFPCJEn29n0rBPktEzutninh1EEUT/791MqxkwgcPilgC yNXxYPPk/StuRAsu7PWmibZQoSowv7T30aHu7SsADRul3BHXIX3q0KkIguYfUlV1 zn/LDxAH2zxVYMhf93MVL3m5bHArAmho8BIAP5F31Xewtt4t/j66t8tCPYs5JFeP TAIsmy7U3cMATy6Q4Agi4dfK3J5rqMRSFz/ZSmao+AHCUikw3AOfsTzXKdxJG5gD jgcwlYI3H9OaWOwRl5brQvrj0pjmIiQisFZnxpj1pxmvMPYjdsbTPt/OYS+UrERJ NP1TiIi+zVWqMw3mBX0Wgm3qgAq3djJVnWV6W8nzQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=GHawMb PmgzVsj1XJrKNmzSe8g0J9k+ZnDhaAN+WTI8A=; b=mrM6xjqqK5CCHpgsqHGdCn FeO8+hT/CJGS4R7F0gGG2DYxV47/qoe0+O28bwTxrNlNUC6LbMEB6fRdErM5IeYl LMFrwi4cgRx1YXyweN1WYrAts4UU2Ezik5kb4brUuhRUzg0DqShH1xv8RmSkbrL3 E9eI7dhu2aWLJNSYQ8dsDJ16mL9gPdC8LTvXF9xtqmQadnGfaKOGTqTHpANa3cim h/cSt/UP9Wz/a192Hvt/HJ2zV9Z59E7k+JsDlvjQi6aGUG687+DqOdCXuDvrsqrZ 5rd4eL/89ra57ueqqYNChXfG8gjkxmMpwSC+NbSUPRxmkPV/JM8KFhRLKSCfh1jg == X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.1.71] (108-84-31-27.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net [108.84.31.27]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F04407E16E for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:35 -0400 (EDT) References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> From: Stan Kalisch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4C198610-2100-4D15-B9D8-8F12F5D7E99E X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13G36) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <931DFAD1-E928-4BB9-A8B6-4A19E00C0298@glyphein.mailforce.net> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:33 -0400 To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 13:50:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4C198610-2100-4D15-B9D8-8F12F5D7E99E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wro= te: >=20 >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman w= rote: >> In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that= 's >> important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can= do >> another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process ove= rhead >> for not very much more. >=20 > It's in the base ARC draft. Does it matter which document does it? As Scott and I pointed out when this question was brought up with regard to h= eader.a, the base ARC draft is intended to be experimental, and this feature= isn't. Thanks, Stan= --Apple-Mail-4C198610-2100-4D15-B9D8-8F12F5D7E99E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector).  I think that's
important for troubleshooting.  Is there a reason you left it out?  I can do
another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overhead
for not very much more.

It's in the base ARC draft.  Does it matter which document does it?

As Scott and I pointed out when this question was brought up with regard to header.a, the base ARC draft is intended to be experimental, and this feature isn't.


Thanks,
Stan
--Apple-Mail-4C198610-2100-4D15-B9D8-8F12F5D7E99E-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 07:21:09 2018 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 7768712DA3E for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PrrsYYpTf5xp for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 C25711271FD for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g203-v6so8110221lfg.11 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ExfLA1m3KI0QCeYk9ybW3vR7obSb7Pkm+DkkQbWvruM=; b=ONCdbzSUVmQV9ZxxEhXrSUinm1CNeZN/Hm+kyE7c1PSBGxEtuH0429mX+9wF+4xTrp ecTEF05DAyPNHc9VlbBjeZQ25JR9zJOjnNCKvNCZ2Oq5LY6juEwddAMS9ELjc426zoXM Ms/mIoMS5bVqLSXZFB9z3nosqWpUvQs+YD8RE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ExfLA1m3KI0QCeYk9ybW3vR7obSb7Pkm+DkkQbWvruM=; b=L1MtW8Zl4NoeovT9HrGP3FGEeXLUODL9eljISrO+IzDDvdwDv91w+oDSSAQeNZdMAJ dL59uFQ04bGgYktNFZ51FHnSpdX832cVOkyFWWnjVAD886AOGapbbY16AJ4u/rQgOOPD biKy2nimIS4RYAE6vt36w32Wupgl8gSR9dGbY9HP+jDg2qwvfsfnMXukAzyqPxsylsFe LI0DNDyk4d8c2fIMI4eWExCJ2UFJ5WRPziwmwotQky1tgSNfxAov4uDe2kOJMcn6M07x 3Zb+SA599/yO/tPfeDYM9a7a5jSUDf8QKnUr0b98NzNsilZh3r85fE2+i8c2KfMjdXtp wELg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HE04e4lTaD6a5PmVtCRNDA8YbnTvoMTv5vo6A2ZZKu+GHpQ3aH SJ7l4WGrQD+z6Ckvuj7dkTHrXeEo7sSznpfFwRTHoA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu/aVLYMsCCi6L6yICFR8j8ebb478yQK0AWl7+2AUlPf02zWUYUo7ffBHDvOoWaDAV4BLtZDD552MoDkAjJPpk= X-Received: by 10.46.124.8 with SMTP id x8mr229874ljc.121.1521642054952; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:20:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:20:54 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N0BuK4t8nobK9_OyAN5HMmcWooE Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: Scott Kitterman , "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e8075a142948cb0567ece6aa" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 14:21:00 -0000 --f4f5e8075a142948cb0567ece6aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: > >> In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think >> that's >> important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can >> do >> another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process >> overhead >> for not very much more. >> > > It's in the base ARC draft. Does it matter which document does it? > > -MSK > We had talked about putting the definitions into 7601bis because that doc is standards track (so presumably more enduring) than the "experimental" ARC spec. --Kurt --f4f5e8075a142948cb0567ece6aa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman <skli= st@kitterman.com> wrote:
In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector).=C2=A0 I think = that's
important for troubleshooting.=C2=A0 Is there a reason you left it out?=C2= =A0 I can do
another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overh= ead
for not very much more.

It's= in the base ARC draft.=C2=A0 Does it matter which document does it?

-MSK=C2=A0
=

We had talked about putt= ing the definitions into 7601bis because that doc is standards track (so pr= esumably more enduring) than the "experimental" ARC spec.

--Kurt=C2=A0

--f4f5e8075a142948cb0567ece6aa-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 07:24:13 2018 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 88DBF12DA2B for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TBDPiJ5NVbuQ for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (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 E6DA112DA3E for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o4so6855407iod.3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3fwl1CL2SWl5StFyk7GveH8lC45jHi2FbjyYOa8UucE=; b=EknFs1HPrtMk86G7DtmJYLKkBUjBiuPJ4KD+/+Oqc0P9R7mV/maqvNHDUXolVadQDT gopsXYS0hFkPove8rbTKk/FBQzZi8L/m2IUxE/qgkY59d2aORRb17yIZPnVY8cbQzz+D GJhwtygwr/NlT2+j8d4kVJSfRFiwpQNHDXP13SEouUURjoiYu2u5nyMU7KvFfD/CP+A8 efYQMVns/Of+8B+RonyA+Cm6sSJZUd4Qbn1RuAtzx8hsCKIeL0awTO/puTp5pZWkrEKR XA6tR8FBygQ0jxUi76GgV/4p3dHZb7DHbidmnD1TdZ+pAixaxVRZgKFnz7k72pUfCOh6 6msg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=3fwl1CL2SWl5StFyk7GveH8lC45jHi2FbjyYOa8UucE=; b=brhMMS2BQXaute5jONnBKb2VkU3j2NWFyjdk8PbWGEXslwIfv1w7v9eo/ko/AZzYvR 8450MGt8zKDU89k4LTDDjycNOIFRSdH3OdmFht1Ba0sIObAwwANItzIyXSiz17NxgXcI Gu9Xpd/CAOhyoC6NSZvFWrVfDsIvFgjn7STwIz5PFAWQ/Kq3fAqwA3FeXg4FrTuvoVwD pCzeyLPqmsWtOOYSq4L90Q7sNp1/WV8+CWW8xNrmiMFvE319kw9ga2BOJyroWTLBr261 IIUP7+v7MLk+hRbyRc9m0o0hSK6jPZW3OJilvAAyHCAn5UGHQdVUm7/UJMQCeGh2XSSS bY7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Fz9Mqdw9wdYX2CG5gzAhkJICjk3NVZXYX6PMUEWOYT8/f8BRbD ZfyLq0HyEQJ5IMw/NZRrZGw2eBvolRCG5fDDJiv2OeM+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvBZm4W3iNox3LcsjCQdxUyfODvMK0XWAUtjjWzutjX1nlJqt+d8VBCHswLrXTrLRHAW9cEwDA5l23bqXTsZvE= X-Received: by 10.107.138.88 with SMTP id m85mr15839565iod.150.1521642243924; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.192.142.161 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Barry Leiba Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:03 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TnNZVJomxobg5_4krQpLHVFrvmY Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Draft minutes from IETF 101 posted X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:12 -0000 https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dmarc-01 Comments/corrections/updates welcome. Barry From nobody Wed Mar 21 08:01:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37F7127076; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:00:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.76.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152164445976.7425.1304992553108222424@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:00:59 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 15:01:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol Authors : Kurt Andersen Brandon Long Steven Jones Seth Blank Murray Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt Pages : 55 Date : 2018-03-21 Abstract: The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct authentication of the email message as it passes among them on the way to its destination, and create an attached, authenticated record of the status at each step along the handling path, for use by the final recipient in making choices about the disposition of the message. Changes in the message that might break existing authentication mechanisms can be identified through the ARC set of header fields. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Mar 21 08:14:25 2018 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 E77A212EAFA for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:20 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 LIFKyrzQD5B3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 A12E212E87C for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id y2-v6so8416860lfc.5 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=73RTzr58/gtYj5X27rV1M4kNAsJpgB3ImyDNxHL1uvc=; b=W115g3MRtfQGTH+L9/OsL8eZzVHhauNBAcc3ZfoO+roujfCeE4M7W4CDJqNErbbZ1/ 6L4q7HXSpy4+cX1a4NkjM9vzKg1yHcXQJYDLZZuJH+j7Bu8qmcsXO/Ir2N/H8vJZj8aq rt/MynKVfeHTBMDSg3K0WxHgK7YXsIYuZWO+E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=73RTzr58/gtYj5X27rV1M4kNAsJpgB3ImyDNxHL1uvc=; b=MWXSxFvCJDPqfCEk3XRUuuHewfFscYfIOKWu4bsaorrKfY4eoqHJX1ZGuCVpJMeGBZ IgEojICBodT0wBktWBtuWNIoHhOvHRSQvqreq3Eeh20uVl0ZRFYkQlOL+zUQKnlnRsaB FPwIHMihMEB63QyQv5dcWTHU+j/tBc+Sv97T7UBSfhkBU/R+lKhUZ+nmVWCXtRVO4BB3 mji4rNyU4wByqwqkh3P5r/K7mlNaoQ26gLYwanaVMt7yn14kT3CoAUPVG5W1rJiRNzKU xo/wqWDbgk536SwKbUg1r9P6M/TGtmwDX/G5QLtDT+Tg4tHZOB4Vsv3qB409Vhx0POQm 7Q+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EipHkYs0USXMan8BaRJrGrjv2QSnk0ncKo1DViX06DoFLU/mfX NigTWByaStxqCL9fVJCyA2Sk1X74Tj0tAJ7RkWSJoXvu X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELun8fKXWlu5OucoVV+mGrjomGhnhzUDnrJAa9EYNxFfVVn2BWOi8P7PT4+7MX/Zrx6vIFeV+mlIqREKAVu2J6A= X-Received: by 2002:a19:dd89:: with SMTP id w9-v6mr14853881lfi.82.1521645251481; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:14:10 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L0h_n-n0ohHNQDwiDuSjFEVSZ0o Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b06b250567eda4de" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] arc-protocol-13 info X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 15:14:23 -0000 --000000000000b06b250567eda4de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > > Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol > Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt > Date : 2018-03-21 > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13 The intent of this version bump was to capture some additional edits that had been proposed on -11 which I had accidentally overlooked. As far as I can tell, this should have the latest text spiffs all in place but still has the same set of open issues as documented in the issue tracker - with the addition of two new ones having to do with AAR ptypes covered by issues 20 & 21. It's unclear to me as to how best to go about resolving the open issues in the issue tracker in a way that demonstrates WG consensus. I'm open to suggestions... --Kurt --000000000000b06b250567eda4de Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Authenticated Received Chain (= ARC) Protocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: 2018-03-21
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc= /draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-i= etf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13
https://datatracker.ietf.org/<= wbr>doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13

The intent of this version bump was to capture some additional edit= s that had been proposed on -11 which I had accidentally overlooked. As far= as I can tell, this should have the latest text spiffs all in place but st= ill has the same set of open issues as documented in the issue tracker - wi= th the addition of two new ones having to do with AAR ptypes covered by iss= ues 20 & 21.

It's unclear to me as to how = best to go about resolving the open issues in the issue tracker in a way th= at demonstrates WG consensus. I'm open to suggestions...

=
--Kurt=C2=A0

--000000000000b06b250567eda4de-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 08:18:42 2018 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 9DFD01242F5 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Jn5_m4lAUpUY for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 28F771275F4 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so8434757lff.3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=t6FajnehxsFVAR9lmZ+Ix4pqeDUQuChWtxi70U/HlaE=; b=rfEf/Q7ew2TZ3mtI+2rrUcuVMSPDByhAbpULQhaDuhR6ttxgs7rJKi4miwt1MiRW6T dhS08kNS3Tl44nJ7AwrtXcBWCczbhF0bwhzC6wtM9FVyZR03ZcZ/JafNuiTz8DBXERXp lTwoGRrm3BIIRIBqBlg2sAr2woo3PWZSab5ezk1TZeTvU9gg48c3n5OymrEJnAHRM21y TSgnMk/35b9uS40hKW2N3QVAc2lLDLHeXMEv+ad2nQCm/zYyR/Vj5VofFo1JYrldHQy5 b6Q25phAFgun4CvoeT7KdURxaj87hNEFW5drzpOI/bKNoYALtDx9/aSHW8I1DaWbc98u wnNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=t6FajnehxsFVAR9lmZ+Ix4pqeDUQuChWtxi70U/HlaE=; b=HgxAXsAkQbuM4QZXR3urS1eRjHVd6rAwjSAUAVqT1Db9Ztrqk+yC4IlCOw8c+OPRqt fB0vPoMmBXpHPyUWjPnvayjA3oUKtu2Meg/KaH1rVEchS3DrMXCas8/lEtZnnnusoQt7 rOt5SAine2u39FWuB6uVjmtAWJYSJSrhL2PqF9i+z63oqAVF1MCQllz018WDQ5afBWjZ Miz4azSrWo8eMXtlG22wf20fT2621Ezz7PEXXFfS07R0DXeOE71Y6I+WzdUBhj0nXlep N4NxUKf4ULdqdF+hgZaORgGu9JAZz8dWfqA0Uzz/KTmB/2dNhcUNOBDFHU5I4wdSBwph fgZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EDm0Zm8WMo0iPTIhKKWQ9pCreELJNKBizSUsczWYiPOscomdb3 VDvHG0m1ZdDobpaJr/R0kN4paOwslJd6xVUkTXqIRQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvgBDw/84P+dGTyaxSnkA1MVG/Tj4M6NlaTKfSl1QukEWqspb9gynvRDeAYHCGvoF9R6aS922Ftt40fK8jMEiA= X-Received: by 10.46.65.73 with SMTP id o70mr4531950lja.140.1521645516088; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.85.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152164445995.7425.14367704532798414761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152164445995.7425.14367704532798414761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:18:35 +0000 Message-ID: To: dmarc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05bfd275e8960567edb488" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 15:18:41 -0000 --94eb2c05bfd275e8960567edb488 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, wrote: > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt > has been successfully submitted by Kurt Andersen and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol > Revision: 13 > Title: Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol > Document date: 2018-03-21 > Group: dmarc > Pages: 55 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc- > protocol-13.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc- > protocol/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol- > 13 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc- > protocol-13 > > Abstract: > The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism > whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct > authentication of the email message as it passes among them on the > way to its destination, and create an attached, authenticated record > of the status at each step along the handling path, for use by the > final recipient in making choices about the disposition of the > message. Changes in the message that might break existing > authentication mechanisms can be identified through the ARC set of > header fields. > I just noticed this: In Section 10.1, you're registering "header.selector" under DKIM, but I think we want "header.s". -MSK --94eb2c05bfd275e8960567edb488 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, <internet-drafts= @ietf.org> wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-ie= tf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt
has been successfully submitted by Kurt Andersen and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol=
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A013
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authenticated Received Chain (ARC)= Protocol
Document date:=C2=A0 2018-03-21
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 dmarc
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 55
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dma= rc-arc-protocol-13.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protoco= l/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http= s://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-pro= tocol
Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dmarc-arc= -protocol-13

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mech= anism
=C2=A0 =C2=A0whereby a series of handlers of an email message can conduct =C2=A0 =C2=A0authentication of the email message as it passes among them on= the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0way to its destination, and create an attached, authenticated = record
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of the status at each step along the handling path, for use by= the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0final recipient in making choices about the disposition of the=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0message.=C2=A0 Changes in the message that might break existin= g
=C2=A0 =C2=A0authentication mechanisms can be identified through the ARC se= t of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0header fields.

I just noti= ced this:

In Section 10.1, you're registering "h= eader.selector" under DKIM, but I think we want "header.s".<= br>
-MSK
--94eb2c05bfd275e8960567edb488-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 08:20:27 2018 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 A17841242F5 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 O8qLBGMJxpgf for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::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 AD8001200FC for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g203-v6so8425300lfg.11 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XsMdYZdSQsfsxQ+eYN75XtGGGcdeJr3mJJWEDH0Ews4=; b=k2r9gmn/PLVI2cIL22JndohBw7LQXP7pConbXX9NkmnWmpM72mH9PO1hOIWLnSfkQT jzx6EhKN1d3MEIN/Ei6WtyX0TCUnugVBZrDm1QrTQ8cgPe4An814Edj6v+EC4/DmIyJh qMNHiM0P3vyA+LpTpex0+fLNn+HZ2WRMKl4TApQYy4Go6+L0NBehUb5sxn8odIJzOLOd aTelTxhG0LkysgoyB3MgL91BKwAy7RI2IiHj/+tyLP5DbRVZae3Xt2+2cquATAVMpa/7 nqdaTzjszkFWtelWot5jfQav5Z3Mc9tmh+s7DgZ9FuLTNqB5epeth0vTLjKVhYlhJyTQ DHZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XsMdYZdSQsfsxQ+eYN75XtGGGcdeJr3mJJWEDH0Ews4=; b=cvE/F1WsTn9GxLb2xFfiNE8eHZY9yfB15ZkROH34GV7rnoL62RAm1Lmer8b22ZagsD A5VUlHBivOKkjwI2F9gvGAjbsbmotV6WytCMlLXjqsu9ZxW2nV4shZYyHVwESlD0pc08 0fXit3XvWpkUU4Z2Cdp6zD0VytJs3EA3T7BN2ocY6cnAy+FTT085NM8LU9NM5cOgs/oC s2TBnoT9n0l5Sing/N+1xb8s6FJPQzgRNp7QAuiHLlT88G6BVC14Ko/HQD+ZYOIGxbBh R6m0dnAsBpSsHhxC651PwieuOi0P3ulbAXToTCIRdIhX+ZDyE4wb4LPu+TCdDrU7k/q3 qUpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EY8z7F+37nrhzxFwmvn41T72LLrYbiO9Bdzocl2/owB4fCYecD Up/ln+jbA6sojklR1fPQmpM568HRxSsosgZfeJycGA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtfFRdkLOTniafRn3QkrkNtKwWAjNNEzJmaNzTtp7yyUJqjXQtx4OsZ73gKL7X8DFp2dOby+3nxDIIDA33v0Z0= X-Received: by 2002:a19:519a:: with SMTP id g26-v6mr13693993lfl.50.1521645621906; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.85.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:20:21 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Cc: Scott Kitterman , "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c491f20567edba24" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 15:20:26 -0000 --000000000000c491f20567edba24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that's > >> important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can >>> do >>> another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process >>> overhead >>> for not very much more. >>> >> >> It's in the base ARC draft. Does it matter which document does it? >> > > We had talked about putting the definitions into 7601bis because that doc > is standards track (so presumably more enduring) than the "experimental" > ARC spec. > Ah, OK. I don't mind which one has it, but I do want to avoid duplicating effort. So I'm fine with either. -MSK --000000000000c491f20567edba24 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@= drkurt.com> wrote:
In the d= iff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector).=C2=A0 I think that'= s
important for troubleshooting.=C2=A0 Is there a reason you left it out?=C2= =A0 I can do
another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of process overh= ead
for not very much more.

It's= in the base ARC draft.=C2=A0 Does it matter which document does it?
=

We had talked about putting the definitions into 7601b= is because that doc is standards track (so presumably more enduring) than t= he "experimental" ARC spec.
<= div>
Ah, OK.=C2=A0 I don't mind which one has it, but I d= o want to avoid duplicating effort.=C2=A0 So I'm fine with either.
<= br>
-MSK
--000000000000c491f20567edba24-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 09:10:42 2018 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 EC68B12E041 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:40 -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 LCuuWzzcGYUK for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 1A795126FB3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l4-v6so4354735lfg.12 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Qo+sFxKxOcO4eigz3RdkDBZ70mr21Dc6m4n6iueM0ZU=; b=cu0Hif1zW6MzQYrjjpQx9N+n/nEfu0I07Y++HGzOebfLmEbScswC1gkr+iZ9jyOH0N aeG5HszmUy7e1gqnv+lP83ctdAgSHieUUKo7LbtEUW4G10ogL27bVoOdt6e3NCpmUYmU DxjMhSntQEcqRpjZXywTgow7h6odXI7Tb4Gns= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qo+sFxKxOcO4eigz3RdkDBZ70mr21Dc6m4n6iueM0ZU=; b=kTR2Y7hpaNaWIt41sU+T1FZWuksplBKqDkP4gJSQdaBYyNq/5XPAV74iGsA4rq+jXF ELvG0gAehVZdLKVLP7DZ/mOcGORhu+aIvj3J8Fgmz4kwhTS1GE8qFfEiSSKCsliuU1lf h9/DPIGpUZajm3JJMkatYeP+6syU4I4EeT3fqIXcpqP8EamsghxB739M/FYG1Uvham9a +3ujPYungXsIMfuKVc0pR5fX3FoQjv9aboByM7kGw8M4ui0n1LqRx8ZKfcq4TsgoCrrU xbqDPtpo44Y9dCviy+rqdNKEGwMIheguR2qwJebKEQmfq+pah8o/uOm8RPTGXpiFkfcC ZbIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F+M9ruT/JZ8tQApMMTytzc/A69xrgKVV0iYflZscfg0KqZOHK8 /SFSQ8s7dmHKJ59uRuuMhsx7EcCOmg0XELSWSZC6Xw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuHBEaz2kqelMlJelPcD9mxLkaw0Eo40xj2nh8L0sIYpS/ljhu54PrbVNnH3WQHlzIZnO0tDn+Eyy+KJKmoE8E= X-Received: by 10.46.118.18 with SMTP id r18mr1727256ljc.16.1521648635197; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:10:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <152164445995.7425.14367704532798414761.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:10:34 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: U1Y8Sn216-SmWBT11rTr9C3Xp5c Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80762f05fcf950567ee6e7e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-13.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 16:10:41 -0000 --f4f5e80762f05fcf950567ee6e7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > I just noticed this: > > In Section 10.1, you're registering "header.selector" under DKIM, but I > think we want "header.s". > Good catch - that's an oversight from some time ago. I've updated it in my evolving copy. --Kurt --f4f5e80762f05fcf950567ee6e7e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --f4f5e80762f05fcf950567ee6e7e-- From nobody Wed Mar 21 09:48:34 2018 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 38EB4127775 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:48:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=AzknIV1Q; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: unsupported version)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=VyR2gDq6 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 Rf_KXMieQTR6 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B577D126CC7 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:48:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1521650910; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=p1WEA8X+9dDQ05FqXk8jSzByw8Q3YYAIUdH4LQg3xCg=; b=AzknIV1QXrnw7rlrWG1oy0hvF19/z1hJsvBADUq3fiNjuo5DuYaS9CAI 4weX9YYBw2dUVbEK+dPIwRS36rWvAQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1521650910; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=p1WEA8X+9dDQ05FqXk8jSzByw8Q3YYAIUdH4LQg3xCg=; b=VyR2gDq61v/oVS+z3nBe0CRCnF0muDH95tgvbMMxGxNrBVxDJuxjxLxY iG5TystC51Afj3hDYiE4RBzLqQRGKS6mwKVv5vlOz3RVCaWVl74vKVp6QR Uth46tDYDo/obR7FuY0HXg/xPiB4dkqQM8vbhTf+cqIQTuhBfCSJnvbaZx A1oA768cXprzBHHh2QLehvb6axpwlvZJYj8ek09Ux+EflbmJcB5zt5X5kL EDdh3wZiVNEY+LHIWeyunnLHN8Ov68wXWhCiLzTbQqFP0CPelZaPGEFWHE RpRrbEuj8eyUR+72U/ibSIjpYP1boY1fX7MnTy5vxZMTKmk+r7BK9w== Received: from [192.168.1.146] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C819C4005E; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:48:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:48:27 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <152156586835.9739.12115055494995440871@ietfa.amsl.com> <5503629.KIvEtx8rFp@kitterma-e6430> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: dmarc@ietf.org From: Scott Kitterman Message-ID: <30FE8EE3-7B5D-4B79-BA53-8DD549628062@kitterman.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 21 Mar 2018 16:48:33 -0000 I definitely prefer it go in the standards track document=2E There's nothi= ng experimental about it=2E Scott K On March 21, 2018 3:20:21 PM UTC, "Murray S=2E Kucherawy" wrote: >On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) >wrote: > >> In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header=2Es (selector)=2E I thin= k >that's >> >>> important for troubleshooting=2E Is there a reason you left it out?= =20 >I can >>>> do >>>> another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a lot of >process >>>> overhead >>>> for not very much more=2E >>>> >>> >>> It's in the base ARC draft=2E Does it matter which document does it? >>> >> >> We had talked about putting the definitions into 7601bis because that >doc >> is standards track (so presumably more enduring) than the >"experimental" >> ARC spec=2E >> > >Ah, OK=2E I don't mind which one has it, but I do want to avoid >duplicating >effort=2E So I'm fine with either=2E > >-MSK From nobody Thu Mar 22 03:32:46 2018 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 EF8711200C5 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:44 -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 0sW86_3iAtsG for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 88255120726 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v207-v6so12344476lfa.10 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uxQzThmomc66T1DmNUcSp8wHTSGYr161EczLqOfh2fY=; b=DxzL8fZuNsh0sp9PE996hG94Dh5Bo/LqwdI1aS9tXnhBKaY7JjmwgTrTlHkij9Kj2q cnH+owEIynlMWLagptgJf7XYeUng3u8XpnWISz3w1iKWe5bLkSVGUM1HgHmtSDftT2+w IbvYi6aJfOTL+dBPfYHeHM8DFN1kD+Q2tKP7Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=uxQzThmomc66T1DmNUcSp8wHTSGYr161EczLqOfh2fY=; b=Dd4nqOdi+gFmRdnBYNZ3Q3qqnEnhM6uq5eBUZo5c6fsJIhBqM3CNeB0Wq2MgBoJdc0 2kHq3V5GNgk4YQYF9kQirIDh1GO4LHHaMxm+3t6AT1+YNPV3EFrzYldUG/7cPNHUivuU QZJof9BuWFQh7OKAp6t6vNyB+7DFCztfDWrjf+YRNfCzljBxnS1F7u8OEFqYbpCrJxGE wLIdgy1QXMlTRFDHoOJyNLCSpMAaWj9uI+ytafStuDUUxqA6g0GkZRz9R/CMOIEZnEH9 ule6ZkCxGvLk5fERWl59e+c/qHg2p4BLD+Gpg+wk1QMzTWI2YoN7d/PyshHtTieTDmhP WIYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EAgHDi2660YlgIxRJVb7GxrHt+YZ1UzQjbUPrYZpEblUPsqT++ lQyTShxXsiPFAJ2IkEpSwzCwFzc+QisuqdpTa/fzBKP1 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs3xHdnrlTzC/69LE8mQmOVK4uCa86P+Y7CCEzorS3Ohb2WRvUYZcUBtyuAEhyVe9TWpDswBrcR+j36bG65+E0= X-Received: by 10.46.145.4 with SMTP id m4mr1086284ljg.73.1521714760472; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 03:32:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:32:39 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OvOv7DFLzkkLu_812XpdcFXwpuE Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80cb450bf6c880567fdd3cb" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Resolving issue #8 (spec is too DMARC-heavy) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 10:32:45 -0000 --f4f5e80cb450bf6c880567fdd3cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I'd suggest that -13 has mitigated this issue by replacing many of the "DMARC" mentions with a more generic "email authentication mechanism" phrase. I recommend that we close this issue. Any objections? --Kurt --f4f5e80cb450bf6c880567fdd3cb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd suggest that -13 has mitigated this issue by repla= cing many of the "DMARC" mentions with a more generic "email= authentication mechanism" phrase.

I recommend that= we close this issue. Any objections?

--Kurt
=
--f4f5e80cb450bf6c880567fdd3cb-- From nobody Thu Mar 22 04:47:42 2018 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 D0D6912420B for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.762 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=J2RhKdZZ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=eVdYCKvr 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 8cH1hsrMSISJ for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5B7127873 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 74217 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2018 11:47:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=121e7.5ab397da.k1803; bh=ObV8+oKZNLynB/rOydVjvLzI45eisMhO3Ir/HBKlWa4=; b=J2RhKdZZbBmBt8OnmhZhJHJfTDIL/PLjXDfmbs2bh7pX1hDS9jEnFQpZJGqsMRw2gyHWtqIDdkXgnHAWUvdevC5AyhJLj06zb4SxhQ3El26s4HidHr07/OJpjimFLQAuj8NnzR6yooOI5iQ3aktTiJZNOf5djWZM5blaY7XKby1ApIbLRtaTk89JvkkXqLyzMB06bt7Kfjn638cXzp9AxOXgLUV5sfFi+eAf620rt+K8nggTHyorNI8VlIenbE+k 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=121e7.5ab397da.k1803; bh=ObV8+oKZNLynB/rOydVjvLzI45eisMhO3Ir/HBKlWa4=; b=eVdYCKvrCsJrHWgWolY4zSpGTRHJzY0evDIeN5ph0uGR3IlgLz3FBpwCPGX8DKShCzDP3gWFpsirf1dmn0FHdFy7D+z5aANkPNxpTFCpcwaeCvYO274UtRo+a0nqRb9M2cwh3utUfB39ObEDC4rFRNA3Q+FtYLtLjgtOcYyoAKPRi9Kkd7KlC9VTUPsFz3liJ8+OF1cuDfJa+4CCnxAtXl2I8bNfy/v+cGi1i+tGDgV6+FRrd9j5EkH5+9NA/kyR Received: from dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 22 Mar 2018 11:47:37 -0000 Received: by dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 03C06237DAC9; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:47:36 +0000 (GMT) Date: 22 Mar 2018 11:47:36 +0000 Message-Id: <20180322114737.03C06237DAC9@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> From: "John Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org Cc: superuser@gmail.com In-Reply-To: Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 11:47:41 -0000 In article you write: >This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support >EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part" is not left in >a good state by these changes. Those of you in the WG with clue about EAI, >please help me sort this out, since I do not fall into that category. That would probably be me, but I don't know what the local-part problem is. My intention was to import the local-part changes from the EAI RFC. From nobody Thu Mar 22 07:17:15 2018 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 37A77124319 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:14 -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 c2PeGRK0PNxa for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (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 48DC11200C5 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id l4-v6so9064283lfg.12 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=4Gmtw2mUq18oQJ/y0qi3SchSg2gmMQWXJadQkBlFX5s=; b=TPyBm7BAYd0NZAgJmdS5SsYdKKYBd7YQ52C3khDv/eF+rnMn+Y5fdfY91z5WlMDwE/ AGNiMEWHwtAT26yqB195yvX/zJyLJ8TQBLIenmXfFG+bj7CGKX0VYC+BaNR2cT3iIkym mifADs42mIhq6R4tmowMJmBsZsBfDZPwu/Kss= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4Gmtw2mUq18oQJ/y0qi3SchSg2gmMQWXJadQkBlFX5s=; b=iBXsVmDrAk1J1H3rQ5mmsOJX3O6Fn+7s+cWS31ShHl5JjFq/qiNL7zEXQMPwLb2Z1h QL3g1hFYvQ2ZB60wVjaH9DWRTuao7ID0Fxv7OaR6YFxIDCybsV/ssuNbHk1wdfPOr1mY IWAph4QfRuGU6Zsw85x6jJrHK0IF0G3YQDSDvJ7rlW6Rk/t6G1R/Te6HilM4+wvf0u1I 0wqxkAV35MF3EZJc/Cf+IWrBrkWA0RydVK+n07eyFXBHuBoa7X6qeZ/RtldWpdZPw/oD Ouzmu6NNEaCFXy6na5U25gFD4Ub/mxRvq7twyPzgmcTgM7e+pegosWpyova6DlkqV+1q CLOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GqCY/WvFyIm/7SfzMCJsIhkx39Z7tAA6mOpEWdY6R32s65GtMa nqbuVpgLBKpLTbWYucJxZLWfVTmHBByKckehHol5PpF3Beg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuzcQehx2pGXdIJiGHI9lNDui95b9ZaDjs+VVIoec5s5SEXwiB8G/JKpFYA5bDSkzQFmlbTiVIHNTitd1vkpTc= X-Received: by 2002:a19:e819:: with SMTP id f25-v6mr13384286lfh.62.1521728230487; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:17:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180322114737.03C06237DAC9@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> References: <20180322114737.03C06237DAC9@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:17:09 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UpAa6B6VPZyz7QENWAZ4Gw2bU2g Message-ID: To: John Levine Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f8f90056800f6da" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 14:17:14 -0000 --0000000000009f8f90056800f6da Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article vmmjMQ@mail.gmail.com> you write: > >This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support > >EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part" is not left > in > >a good state by these changes. Those of you in the WG with clue about > EAI, > >please help me sort this out, since I do not fall into that category. > > That would probably be me, but I don't know what the local-part > problem is. My intention was to import the local-part changes from > the EAI RFC. The problem has to do with the ambiguity that is being imported along with those local-part ABNF changes. --Kurt --0000000000009f8f90056800f6da Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wr= ote:
In article <CAL0= qLwZLW9DT+nyWFoLHZaXivzspx=3Ds7-GMKOhd9=3DrB=3DvmmjMQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's ch= anges to support
>EAI.=C2=A0 However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part&q= uot; is not left in
>a good state by these changes.=C2=A0 Those of you in the WG with clue a= bout EAI,
>please help me sort this out, since I do not fall into that category.
That would probably be me, but I don't know what the local-part<= br> problem is.=C2=A0 My intention was to import the local-part changes from the EAI RFC.

The problem has to do with the= ambiguity that is being imported along with those local-part ABNF changes.= =C2=A0

--Kurt
--0000000000009f8f90056800f6da-- From nobody Thu Mar 22 07:49:35 2018 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 5F0E612D87E for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:30 -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=unavailable 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 GTkF2jbgzPb4 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 36BC512D86E for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t132-v6so13579075lfe.2 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YKyb9ixnWiJN16A/Pb3i4Cr2Zb2dpMjZ6WEVAjdBzHY=; b=GQwRFXTzGnfAQJUFFSpWnjfUuOjkaJV4JiHBPfrvWps9nMlxuyfnmJh9iu93OEPvkH 2xMcsei2pzPTB1m3aaX12peE3L+MjsEz59LiDi0KcVRDyhVGYoqdSPwOEzXZLU3rhQk+ QrB5Z51yLcEXPO6i5PZbOA45U3/XLLk840qOs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=YKyb9ixnWiJN16A/Pb3i4Cr2Zb2dpMjZ6WEVAjdBzHY=; b=AO6IyfFLUpxF06tIHBPamVT0i9BiLqcZw6WnwOQSPMDFs3haOzL40rVNuMYMMcKzxz +Kj2EkU2MfX5BsziMBNCYWj10rnyAGeV9d9/9XFURva+wqicp4oBFMoBAj2X9Ooe7pIc 1e+LZVxwt33E4YT+qrjFZtukrOZ6mlBA/P/Te+x581jkGVanRkgNb4D3rJATrh3wrP2p Xma65g2yNfmIK9ojboebyjCDWFjbLEIlbMFJXTAGlVltjRM/VEi07ChUENKQCryhjZMf Cm/dvpWQ/pCkbykZ3SOf1HCqJHePSpAf6Y1NPiQLkXkv5yqFVQXqRBCbw6PS2PqUXyqt lGzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GlLDO5X53/TnzH/amtZsXfNNp9IAi0Z28beSK+NsKmeKw1M8vL XHygsqBvHUeHXfCcfwXOMvKNt2cpW3JaztEAxxg8apIDSkE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtvRPYYh3jb4krsF2SLL4Rc2azS6TJpciTHzFa2ql7/TPt4nTtRbsM11kPpI1HxnNYfGXiiz5EUgGulDEcDm5k= X-Received: by 10.46.118.18 with SMTP id r18mr4315321ljc.16.1521730166088; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:49:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:49:25 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: n7KZcfgAaaBDp2nefBDZztGTNpo Message-ID: To: "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80762f0fe7b8d0568016993" Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 14:49:30 -0000 --f4f5e80762f0fe7b8d0568016993 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I just noticed (when reviewing the latest 7601bis version) that Sender-ID was never officially deprecated, i.e., moved to "historic" status. That probably should have been done as part of the SPFbis work. For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to make 4406 historic? --Kurt --f4f5e80762f0fe7b8d0568016993 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just noticed (when reviewing the latest 7601bis version)= that Sender-ID was never officially deprecated, i.e., moved to "histo= ric" status. That probably should have been done as part of the SPFbis= work.

For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, wh= at would it take to make 4406 historic?

--Kurt
--f4f5e80762f0fe7b8d0568016993-- From nobody Thu Mar 22 07:52:12 2018 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 05F2812D86E; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.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 u6pgbnzPPFpx; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355B8127337; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w2MErQRc015979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:53:26 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1521730406; bh=Zh0msy2INh9M/Ysfa6aIx3fMV2V//f7Mt3CfxeqvReQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=e71DLuHJ+Aq2brBudYZRzutmF1rjfh2R+JW9ol5W5Q64ncQr+Ko2FBnBo4kHYBZXl vqUmzkZaYlud6Evyiy7T5N4nmTaXqXuAkS9iET/hJP0BVhq8700cSCCs1o1VG7xSbY K8S5mWF0HniNPo6Zvag2KdN/66/oCNOBdlFfq4KI= To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss References: Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:51:56 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 14:52:06 -0000 On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to > make 4406 historic? +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Mar 22 09:14:26 2018 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 2B10412E957 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:14:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 SSCFsxDw5Fok for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4993C12EAB7 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QQFLG3XW3K0016AI@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1521734937; bh=PYgUB85V/KjWstO4LyirMvBq7nMZpDCpVz6F8q0OFps=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=dyzPIEVDGCx9oqkEj0AgAyBSmfobdtHXkSi+1OQc7P2Zu62anZdpCDeApn0nnBqJD 6LT1iLZ5T6JiqB7kSe91JVeYFZEHP75nwnYPfPs5t9d3W/V6iUOum4wGFHXk5cRMrb Dlmz/6lA705tc8eW4yw7el9t87k56XS5qMZuCLZQ= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; Format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QQ1J13T4YO00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:08:54 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss Message-id: <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:08:27 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:51:56 -0700" <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> To: Dave Crocker Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 22 Mar 2018 16:14:21 -0000 > On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to > > make 4406 historic? > +1 Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often, but it does come up. Ned From nobody Thu Mar 22 18:05:23 2018 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 B5B3F12711D for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:05:21 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=MpPI4VfC; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KtreA6Yo 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 cgVYQVIftrv7 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB3CB127058 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 99342 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2018 01:05:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1840b.5ab452ce.k1803; bh=Fx7dNRzE8CFtyIvT8BFtSWRInsLEwjIDzcShzU2fPGc=; b=MpPI4VfCKSonaRirdc8nC7mKgOkHup4sy5s3hbrUlDaEpQIMeSPr8pTKwJy0ydcD68fsnGnbS2NsJXYKNXkZeMW11vk/QN5eHmXWbYgjBBXVULzesbk7aOqNSrNedUcqeQxTLmZteSVOuVVrzXSHjnyIVCyuyVG2igmFFTYRW7wmKA56EFnlE8h0vTvZ1JFEJs/52pKJJ9Y8ONyzmGFBKbdqG5D7v0wSLgQ3rvxlMJc2n9EUtdE4XUKxKOFeGw8j DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1840b.5ab452ce.k1803; bh=Fx7dNRzE8CFtyIvT8BFtSWRInsLEwjIDzcShzU2fPGc=; b=KtreA6Yok/SGKMwo405iJdPSL2fCyUJbqWCAe8yiiYtLQpSfmipjvqKq/qy78wvptMv40tJU5a9xquO+PPN9Si3ilI971bx+JRpb9DEazLi652fOUJmr+3lWF/N4t38nty/Y7JMj4OBVQQ+7XdJNxukOzHBAI88+35waGWz+Lk8nCK4PJu+C+NAwSbiB1qNHmBtB5cL+NEaQvQviAKTF+7OYJL5s7R2QTLVD5DhJFq34QfGV5IUiJ0/7xwA5m3XZ Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 23 Mar 2018 01:05:18 -0000 Date: 23 Mar 2018 01:05:17 +0000 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" In-Reply-To: References: <20180322114737.03C06237DAC9@dhcp-8344.meeting.ietf.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 01:05:22 -0000 On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: >> That would probably be me, but I don't know what the local-part >> problem is. My intention was to import the local-part changes from >> the EAI RFC. > > The problem has to do with the ambiguity that is being imported along with > those local-part ABNF changes. It's importing the changes directly from the EAI spec: "local-part" is defined in Section 3.4.1 of [MAIL], as modified by [RFC6531]. Unless there is some lurking bug in RFC 6531 I don't understand what the problem is unless it should be this: "local-part" is defined in Section 3.4.1 of [MAIL]. In an EAI-formatted message, the definition is modified as in [RFC6531]. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Fri Mar 23 02:52:13 2018 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 34D6312D7E5 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:12 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 unOcuQ8F1VMO for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 44E4612D7E6 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id a22-v6so17374653lfg.9 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=KnBnBqdNaeC3LbNbCNorwqTHGmzfcEV46cER9i3Xcjo=; b=ZNGo9h+84rTeCKrX8IyWySDj2+tEskickryn6gLUlmmmjmyK61WUgKQ9KZdn0p3pFF Ublc1thq4ZS1LhPeF9lYbVI6rxvjDI6iUI49lHRe5bEMGCPamV5d2ET6YePF9xns2BQA PnI23nARMB0yBGKP3Wj3aZywNBLA4hqzYrFQU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KnBnBqdNaeC3LbNbCNorwqTHGmzfcEV46cER9i3Xcjo=; b=UbSUtDrt6dkPurftViXyIntUdtLINCiEBDGoqF7c8ed4U4bmM5hEVrHRnESsy9M/wz 6V1iHG9iZ6pp1VxHcxf2RRtPHsh+K/Cmx7v6AIFy+rWnETlEDqMo98OZ7WgiRuopNQCX Bs8xEPFA4LuV6+tCKHhc+EmWiBq4L61CV5S2surcTppswslGhftki6l4HzheM1wnv8w4 571bHzepJr/Mnf5MSpEYt3PUlyYHATdywIlD2po6iaRTt9Fiiczkv210zZuPrqhkXaJo Roqw2P8rCZI+8PdqPXwUiy47kLJtgCh5P/m+ooShWbnPWdqurYsZP4UXQYlBPV5PJZDy 0Aaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GT1H9mGyTCzQNL7MXm12pdbmNMMan90jwiQ29GWXNbsgqvl3ee 1OC6pyXBrNnI//hcXAAQ6LCUdKNAXAPe0rUOrwpkxA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELssxmqDvMPyhWo6Iyar81fYIeZUCms7uOsT3rrFGiVjgqEUgOVRRZqlSW4xawzYqt24kujoi57AhoL8eqQtY3M= X-Received: by 2002:a19:911a:: with SMTP id t26-v6mr18638778lfd.101.1521798728369; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 02:52:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:52:07 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Nszt3izTzTL4I4mFNojUuwUwJUk Message-ID: To: Ned Freed Cc: Dave Crocker , "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009fe3630568116015" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 09:52:12 -0000 --0000000000009fe3630568116015 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: >> > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to >> > make 4406 historic? >> > > +1 >> > > Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often, but it does > come up. I have now posted https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this task. Please let me know if that fits the bill. --Kurt --0000000000009fe3630568116015 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com><= /span> wrote:
On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to > make 4406 historic?

+1

 Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often, but it d= oes
come up.

I have now posted=C2=A0https://t= ools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this task.<= /div>

Please let me know if that fits the bill.

--Kurt=C2=A0

--0000000000009fe3630568116015-- From nobody Fri Mar 23 05:27:25 2018 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 38D2412D88C for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.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 0xTyPDN4zDQG for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E5112D7F7 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26220 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2018 12:27:14 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=666a.5ab4f2a2.k1803; bh=AeD/gA3J9snFQ9qw5yRjeiOVBq1mLrQ3xVEp7/47T0k=; b=dZ1vHAc7IIhbxblzHqaMRSqy4TMyNZjSsf+xwVuJ5jrGV7oPyLclQ4qwblX9Qvs7xe0bP/iVJcXJq+DDJkD29mtW9+g5CPgWUHEy3Tz3ze9mL2IYuBkNLmpdVOz4BWKkEjT/BU+PBCw4MvFYY+3STejckg5ZvK2pnFWUNQ5heRxY3OUz7ErGRIekTfXoMvZydDYpLEEoIaIwgfYYUAMpur+1WKg/v9xzw/yTTX1ENtnGHNlHhvh90zaBDNm2Z+bd Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 23 Mar 2018 12:27:14 -0000 Date: 23 Mar 2018 12:27:13 +0000 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "Dave Crocker" , "SMTP Discuss" In-Reply-To: References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 12:27:19 -0000 > I have now posted > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this > task. > > Please let me know if that fits the bill. Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document like this one. AD sponsored? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Fri Mar 23 05:30:53 2018 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 4588A12D887; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:30:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.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 XTHu8lWfm_RU; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407371201F8; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 05:30:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1521808242; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=3425aKQpOrzLh89AtnYP+Nj6C7SXYmoDdERT4FBaLUI=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ujUxKrisbk5Bt/LvWSBPM0AfROi16WaSD9ruFZ8f3DnQzk0yNkCX7PEFofRT0+eOp4jsnD sJf1Ci087Z4Q2pVU/UCYuFshh01x07CgJDqj2mpST2d8isnyQdmSGk6iHEyXtD/9ybOnCV 3uhCHU49aEZGAmIuxt3dr0e+FOSfoTU=; Received: from [31.133.151.214] (dhcp-97d6.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.151.214]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:30:41 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14F89) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:40:43 +0000 Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , Dave Crocker , "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss Message-Id: <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> To: "John R. Levine" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 12:30:45 -0000 On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine wrote: >> I have now posted >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this= >> task. >>=20 >> Please let me know if that fits the bill. >=20 > Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a documen= t like this one. AD sponsored? Yes. From nobody Fri Mar 23 06:02:31 2018 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 7DADA12D948; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 r0NNEe5YAu5M; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 9CCDC12D945; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id y2-v6so18192490lfc.5; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b5F0ukYyTze3vH2YuEEppqLnnjdIcRVavymIaP6xswk=; b=GTPB6rG2LgrWDA5LgCDWlSTKp148/HfvGBQAj1mC5VVVL0CtMwT1z5jBLVrorO3MxL OGC8miP28zeObgSVN+fCeUFtZK2A3wtAEZWrVnCNdw3iFt+QifYZWv56SPL5L2WRgGhw tbGmfyMOyB+L7eDS6PFdHJQ+2rtLrmreOzGZPBoKV5psvwTCYp5vQUVoXhBk5/kBD2QR +CszIcOh1K/shZscERjfIG82G/vOiy42GunQvoMIEOaToSJgbg+8NbXO8SFG9Pj6lSLB 42Rwr0rbxTY5Yu4QHBKz9PE7UdWrpILVeFfdNln+QobVxHpdCeSN4zElQ4wensC6ehRg 2m7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b5F0ukYyTze3vH2YuEEppqLnnjdIcRVavymIaP6xswk=; b=siN/EImTHktx1mb8GJTWBumOLg2RBZFp69o3qCdg7a0GGFDLN5pvA1dWCaES6GwsSy FTwJFyT64+U1ichHe1kC7+lRtPfDE8DdsJwiYGMhTgSX8HzuH2WamIovseuT5D6twOjK 7Jd7F1qk+2nNqVkTJpN21WjuPY7stMKirAOQMoF8OwFpXX7PDUasmG7radclUJMv7hd/ 5a8yF4bmtIe9jBm2JyNOGkEWgfdJBl8MLfGG5Cp/TXCHVDm2l1HzgOVDvYSDFZewK3ro /nNlC1QRxqqVXphPOFWoqAxuLdSQxdli7F6J2FkAmgQnGC4Bt4uO0MnxpINPT5ytuAKq V/Tg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GDKa65cLEIG2WoXBJu4LW/ATDYrfyWYSwkFGvjxM1v+X8U6vzX LjDmr6r0VZiYJCBb0gZrixeD3PlG9tw9+Vovd+1PDA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs3jWNJ/zTr/xAA9hg5lpGP0s8tDAOzzfwO02vJfc8goZgExVqBCS3ksEyG+QBAQn4h0TJCdCf3d0WOs4NhZrU= X-Received: by 10.46.99.93 with SMTP id x90mr20262529ljb.2.1521810145773; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.115.7 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:02:24 +0000 Message-ID: To: Alexey Melnikov Cc: "John R. Levine" , "dmarc@ietf.org" , Dave Crocker , "Kurt Andersen (b)" , SMTP Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a55f427929e0568140905" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 13:02:29 -0000 --001a114a55f427929e0568140905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine wrote: > >> I have now posted > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for > this > >> task. > >> > >> Please let me know if that fits the bill. > > > > Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a > document like this one. AD sponsored? > > Yes. > Seems strange that the abstract and the main content are the same, but if that's how we do these things, so be it. I volunteer to shepherd. -MSK --001a114a55f427929e0568140905 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> I have now posted
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html= /draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this
>> task.
>>
>> Please let me know if that fits the bill.
>
> Looks good to me.=C2=A0 I hope Dave remembers what the process is for = a document like this one.=C2=A0 AD sponsored?

Yes.

Seems strange that the abst= ract and the main content are the same, but if that's how we do these t= hings, so be it.

I volunteer to shepherd.

-MSK
--001a114a55f427929e0568140905-- From nobody Fri Mar 23 06:03:04 2018 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 7FE8912D94B; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:03:02 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sonnection.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 1eop2UOz7VeQ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8525C12D945; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx14.mailtransaction.com (mx11.mailtransaction.com [88.198.59.230]) by mx20.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4073cL3hQJz1L8k2; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl (D57E1706.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.126.23.6]) by mx14.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4073cL2N4Xz5Mh6R; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0634222CB; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:58 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tiger.sonnection.nl Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tiger.sonnection.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id oCFVyUoRfE0c; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from lion.sonnection.nl (lion.sonnection.nl [192.168.30.2]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAC04222CA; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:02:57 +0100 (CET) From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Cc: Ned Freed , dmarc@ietf.org, Dave Crocker , SMTP Discuss Message-ID: <1806966497.1036836.1521810177821.JavaMail.zimbra@sonnection.nl> In-Reply-To: References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1036835_1073094176.1521810177820" X-Originating-IP: [192.168.20.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1182 (ZimbraWebClient - FF59 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1182) Thread-Topic: Moving RFC4406 to historic? Thread-Index: n5JVL02IIxzCiaTbJI/I9i/mA9NF0g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1521810178; bh=E1FFRDeZSz9GLMv+cB+jY0rn5g855RxdJdBWINB/VdM=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:From; b=U3Gs3H9rv+KKcrz/k7IR2WHsEZvJHUDEe+sGtAGgqDmirtig9BvBblTh2Lg3Ni6/c B4D/wyt2LSRZXd7eo3WMD3nur/P3LCajO4QYWSXPF74cJMih1TOIfz5/6/OJji3r47 QPDHysx0bbIwPw45nRfRr/CADFiCJWpYVYbLFSI8= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx20.mailtransaction.com 4073cL3hQJz1L8k2 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 13:03:02 -0000 ------=_Part_1036835_1073094176.1521810177820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have now posted > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this task. > Please let me know if that fits the bill. it does. Thanks, /rolf ------=_Part_1036835_1073094176.1521810177820 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Please let me know i= f that fits the bill.

it does.

Thanks,
/rolf

------=_Part_1036835_1073094176.1521810177820-- From nobody Fri Mar 23 06:07:27 2018 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 5E793127873; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:07:25 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sonnection.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 w1lvAI1Puy7H; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx20.mailtransaction.com (mx20.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BB2126DD9; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx24.mailtransaction.com (mx21.mailtransaction.com [78.46.16.236]) by mx20.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4073jR1kq7z1L93P; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl (D57E1706.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [213.126.23.6]) by mx24.mailtransaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4073jR0JRDz1L8k2; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB9D4222CA; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:22 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tiger.sonnection.nl Received: from tiger.sonnection.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tiger.sonnection.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1rcK0CIp14pq; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from lion.sonnection.nl (lion.sonnection.nl [192.168.30.2]) by tiger.sonnection.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFDB4222C9; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:22 +0100 (CET) From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: Alexey Melnikov , "John R. Levine" , Dave Crocker , dmarc@ietf.org, "Kurt Andersen (b)" , SMTP Discuss Message-ID: <215490810.1036901.1521810442630.JavaMail.zimbra@sonnection.nl> In-Reply-To: References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1036900_1577080568.1521810442630" X-Originating-IP: [192.168.20.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1182 (ZimbraWebClient - FF59 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1182) Thread-Topic: Moving RFC4406 to historic? Thread-Index: pXlMsnLtkB24ZPVviN5qyIW56sGJmQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sonnection.nl; s=2009; t=1521810443; bh=MIa2tCUrzb7Lcko8yf0E82Ippix7W/H32H7YSjp69CU=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:From; b=S62/JcJbGDCg6J23oMA261mG2cT1zObrHJGFBWF3hL4Iaoxxcuo4r3wxbQzGVjM8O VHklksXyG2ucRhA0/+Dely2d7mRFeS+vl2QQg+uhgx9YnY2eSyKlqMFE7sFPs/SKwL H2af9+/IsraKDDAXHT5db5ybDqmg9gWp611lG/Ms= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2 mx20.mailtransaction.com 4073jR1kq7z1L93P Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 13:07:25 -0000 ------=_Part_1036900_1577080568.1521810442630 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> Please let me know if that fits the bill. >>> Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document like >> > this one. AD sponsored? >> Yes. > Seems strange that the abstract and the main content are the same, but if that's > how we do these things, so be it. The abstract could be compressed to only the last sentence: This document acknowledges that Sender ID did not pass its experiment, and changes the status of RFCs 4405 [ RFC4405 ], 4406 [ RFC4406 ], and 4407 [ RFC4407 ] to Historic. /rolf ------=_Part_1036900_1577080568.1521810442630 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> Please let me know if that fits the bill.
>
> Looks good to me.  I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document like this one.  AD sponsored?

Yes.

Seems strange that the abstract and the main content are the same, but if that's how we do these things, so be it.

The abstract could be compressed to only the last sentence:

This document acknowledges that Sender ID did not pass its
   experiment, and changes the status of RFCs 4405 [RFC4405], 4406
   [RFC4406], and 4407 [RFC4407] to Historic.

/rolf

------=_Part_1036900_1577080568.1521810442630-- From nobody Fri Mar 23 07:07:55 2018 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 EF1851243F6 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 C1KDcx4d4DYf for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5D012D7F6 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QQGVFZU4JK0013MB@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1521813960; bh=tLVCHUW/E5oYUclozUYxx3xvOTaW049qPyGxgz3UJVY=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=kJuAZy5KOIKRG3L3MGuq+nuSt9EMmH7hWMZ1eNHlGTBpSRb6ELeCsz/5g3TJJ5rhc eAw18WRew+uZWd/RRqbhWPJMWqrMtcNjJ2Yy1I0tRxNz1IyXr+HlRb99Fuv9pTw30g cQqC/VhmBN/Q9ADGr1ept+XGxTCtuBgk50hlKhds= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QQ1J13T4YO00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:05:53 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Cc: Ned Freed , Dave Crocker , "dmarc@ietf.org" , SMTP Discuss Message-id: <01QQGVFUYD9I00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:05:40 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:52:07 +0000" References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:49 -0000 WFM. Ned > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > > On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > >> > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to > >> > make 4406 historic? > >> > > > > +1 > >> > > > > Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often, but it does > > come up. > I have now posted > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this > task. > Please let me know if that fits the bill. > --Kurt From nobody Fri Mar 23 07:43:57 2018 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 A7ADA12D969 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gj41EA5RLw7H for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::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 0EA2A12D96C for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so18678381lff.3 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5cZdCsrNuIqW2Nza3PlI97lmfGG04ytGWy7rPD9Trik=; b=icCAlcbom1O2xic0/KuAVt4F1BDE3S8kX3eoS0DwP9MgvaZYno4FFltTq/SXRl46VD 9b/wyky1TmU8V0S7GFxpreEWZROJMYoyyz1PgQBnWzLTBdJIYT+pmvF/NJrHklOzap39 4qfUq2TOE73ZZaRulZH8Rp9YRCxeEOEgfjXZ7VzheFJ6o/DcQoTCp4VMfzUAM7sUu9YO 7e7ntwj/1OudAN0mKtH+nMWWnw1QHqsBMUYlqEd4uREC7k1zbs7264R5TQEenvY6XASw 65N9G5MD6+tNm1D+jyOe7KCeRES+FzDHG2TXiJDhARjQ/U+lHP/gKcqSF4Yyt46vlEdv sX4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5cZdCsrNuIqW2Nza3PlI97lmfGG04ytGWy7rPD9Trik=; b=TFfmXBdPQ4zaWRTY/qS+erNGj1261PsA3cy4w1GTpPWGY5WyCj5/NQ5bDNiHn7kn5f XG+ZAUrHCA4yxFo+s/zev2hLVZRTj++wXq42tl4Z+cl7jyB0WdQ1k6KUeZi3Ztvz2xKV ElRpegx4i4t7KzHSj2VveZcfBkJthyreRT6G2k9hGULCcnVamKawPoR4zUIci28nwPpO rtK18hEawRMa/0TcM4VPlPKiUM+qmGSqoabquzqGb0a6FVSUjrqKmCGMkSe3nUOhBIV+ SIA+j8A78G5KHukScu/Nirs9t3keykt9zPa+oLCn6iOcbueT3rLu/qZ+8Zr7cAbnwp27 kcPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7G7dfdZ9VVTY69lnk7R95bzgkfK7DSsE98GT7dvcc2rTI1mgyjJ zEart9Aqh5mxVBuXXO5Ec+uNpiW4aEmIDvZW5DI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuUkXwcrpip3NHRrJKOdYDUJCfY27vt7G9sAoEPQibEmICV4gqwyX/P5RTokQ658QxzdsnukPonR1VjIlJ/ujs= X-Received: by 10.46.65.73 with SMTP id o70mr10436083lja.140.1521816232129; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.115.7 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <01QQGVFUYD9I00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> <01QQGVFUYD9I00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:43:51 +0000 Message-ID: To: Ned Freed Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" , "dmarc@ietf.org" , Dave Crocker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05bfd2edfc4305681573dc" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 14:43:56 -0000 --94eb2c05bfd2edfc4305681573dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > WFM. +1 -MSK --94eb2c05bfd2edfc4305681573dc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed= @mrochek.com> wrote:
WFM.

+= 1

-MSK
--94eb2c05bfd2edfc4305681573dc-- From nobody Fri Mar 23 08:37:27 2018 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 C910E12D87E; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 nt5SQDvOnosV; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 281BF120227; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g5so1824265qth.7; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QHCTrrffO6CvCra8E62PXwysyLyK0V80YlIQBuHshvU=; b=e9icLoQgPBa4AwaV6u8qiy9OdIPVjgUadaSpXl0H/ZUMOhHKVHanQA3m44tuLpzCF9 +g100gjtzUlSQFDUxz+U04rO9rQa+6VLvv0dGtPt0tFHfBCiotnOuuigF6fLfNbUsBOn UIkIw4+X2Vfd0q+HP/9DMNA4zH68jE3okZfiBvGVhiGOjzPQo2V/Ox3t4Qx3ZngJo8wA VA2b64ne3fA8cIVUe5mSYDrM5W8bfNny/Xga4wrhialmKf9V83qzwr+HUH5VW0cebDL+ QMpmWYt1yxizhOqhEGLh9BrVwiaetsNtAcaiB/nbtwYgsfiHtFuKaqTjRJ1nqH2SHqzc W+TA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QHCTrrffO6CvCra8E62PXwysyLyK0V80YlIQBuHshvU=; b=B6la81YhxigksLWa+S4rmcpVYhcvN3dI1Y2bpThJvnutn5POrB7wMU7muEFHkskuUs SE4sVHra4jduskERWvtlVi+c1ObPyK1maEFtiZNXIbq6yjdLHQerqTYvpmtsZTQHBDkp V41neSblkwaThuFPZ90NNmjhmaCHZWP6biog3UJbxsgRDfX90JSx5T0BFRboGBc4BIQT zrg+qNfsdLSiOnFIvm0DzUtCKl7YI86t2rUktxZCyMMlRMvIGMl0P9/auEcmcsGozFJq 3wRR/onev0zoQ4qYvXUNuV3FEEr8Fa6d4k14ByI2oHg+xqbyaOw2cMu7uDS++TsecYGt qiPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Hh16Z4Wu8Z7SGXsUZ+3f8fPP7qVkUVcrGPirPh+bus8QL0A0E8 xc4A5DvO9niprp+2POApb7yBUAQatwquiUB5evs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELurkCPuIUpTaGj2UTW2OY4yzl2c2co4LwFnlyKx/HEqwcX3OKl3MOjkRbdUueHVt0E8R/hkkB9VA5xp9TTuf2Q= X-Received: by 10.237.59.253 with SMTP id s58mr41503192qte.83.1521819438002; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.237.62.122 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:37:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> <652A7D19-5986-4A75-A94D-0B9F0FAF1F63@isode.com> From: Barry Leiba Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:37:17 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wAc_qlfw_zyNUtK4E0ZYCmwep24 Message-ID: To: Alexey Melnikov Cc: "John R. Levine" , "dmarc@ietf.org" , Dave Crocker , "Kurt Andersen (b)" , SMTP Discuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 23 Mar 2018 15:37:21 -0000 We actually don't need an I-D for this, and I think we should not use one. I propose the following text in a status-change document that covers all three RFCs 4405, 4406, 4407: << In 2006, two experiments were started for email authentication: Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC 4408) and Sender ID (RFC 4406, supported by RFCs 4405 and 4407). After eight years of experimental data (RFC 6686), it was clear that SPF remained in widespread use while Sender ID did not. RFC 7208 moved SPF from Experimental status to Proposed Standard. This document acknowledges that Sender ID did not pass its experiment, and changes the status of RFCs 4405, 4406, and 4407 to Historic. >> Alexey, will you create a status-change document with that? And then we'll just let Kurt's draft expire. There's no reason to publish an RFC here. Barry On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine wrote: >>> I have now posted >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this >>> task. >>> >>> Please let me know if that fits the bill. >> >> Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document like this one. AD sponsored? > > Yes. > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-smtp mailing list > ietf-smtp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp From nobody Sat Mar 24 04:14:55 2018 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 2FE101201FA for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:14:49 -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=unavailable 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 1rBIk9L5cYYS for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 E31331241F8 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so21818654lff.3 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:14:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=K2CdRRBKWjTMDT2QahMjxgevRXgRWHMUk1NRArRKTJ8=; b=AmDLOBKoKNt0oLcAGMmzEW5vYUVmDiy04+3HXO0WdvOMU/5CYPHG8raHhtFxf6I28A ayICgZwUmFSsasBlWjt+kJNpmBPMn4i0+NbMsq16dOY6tyerVktI4mcI0s4e84IyM0sl fyBBem+3oCBwd0sVKvB/liV77DRk80af8Pt8I= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K2CdRRBKWjTMDT2QahMjxgevRXgRWHMUk1NRArRKTJ8=; b=rlAk3UWNVv8axwGRzF7KOnY8kzbeLlQjvbxQ/3bjaIF6SMUn0S+Psteo1tcfBSbYUp ce4s5/UXA4dC4d8Y7ZE2D+lZH4k+2OpdOXDETmJGPlzqL7UPhl9Bn+4vuyzs04zpeP3n NjDIR3GTXunmXK3oDFHP50pxugJ9P5bgHo1fSo2N21Q3zpxaO8SDqsbSwxoe8HqHg30z KETubz2yNcYSfZv6ge7V8qnOxYpxJHU/rphC2uMLR9gfM+zSqUTjbFetJIyvbh/znqhP +dKMTwaZjpNxVl6aYJ+TPkAqNzZFXBGN/Ub+sOpcAGYraI9ybm5TSxC9Boc9t63J9Xy/ N8NQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GEGjh/P3x0SKD2roLj+BUNbM+Sl4AxVqyqc44UTDA/QNBjmzq5 ycQGT7+NxyARyXHtGCArPhcKcB8JTYnXWrq0NP4PK94L X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv0yMGWWSOKce7aZGl/WvGFYmTPl+VkeD2igUPf9fTsCle3Th+/nSwNdz0RCUIrFCYWxC6uVRJJsScnH2ZVbsQ= X-Received: by 2002:a19:dd89:: with SMTP id w9-v6mr23039573lfi.82.1521890067045; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 04:14:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <22aaea7b-d5db-cfbf-31da-3b905fcd8fac@dcrocker.net> <01QQFLG28Q2Y00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> <01QQGVFUYD9I00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01QQGVFUYD9I00CZTT@mauve.mrochek.com> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:14:16 +0000 Message-ID: To: Ned Freed Cc: Dave Crocker , dmarc@ietf.org, SMTP Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d57615056826a4f8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic? X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 24 Mar 2018 11:14:49 -0000 --000000000000d57615056826a4f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 14:07 Ned Freed wrote: > WFM. > > Ned > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Ned Freed > wrote: > > > > On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > >> > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what would it take to > > >> > make 4406 historic? > > >> > > > > > > +1 > > >> > > > > > > Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often, but it > does > > > come up. > > > > I have now posted > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for > this > > task. > > > Please let me know if that fits the bill. > > > --Kurt > Ship it! > --000000000000d57615056826a4f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, = Mar 23, 2018, 14:07 Ned Freed <= ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
ned.freed@mrochek.co= m> wrote:

> > On 3/22/2018 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> >> > For the sake of people browsing the IETF RFCs, what woul= d it take to
> >> > make 4406 historic?
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >>
> >
> > Yes, cleaning this up would be good. It doesn't come up often= , but it does
> > come up.


> I have now posted
> https://tools.ietf.o= rg/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this
> task.

> Please let me know if that fits the bill.

> --Kurt

Ship it!
--000000000000d57615056826a4f8-- From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:13:15 2018 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 65404126CC4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.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 xFODa-QZRvTE for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 803F81276AF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 52997 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2018 20:13:10 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=cf03.5ab95456.k1803; bh=L3kMGS8ranP+POznJe5SZ4+qpNCjFWdBbyvClxhCAfA=; b=Dobu8hTMo9JLIUi4LCJX/gMcFJsUu27GwiZjffQdUpwBww+W+Hng/XSxqqxikEymG8roAyByKxFwvZ+V+t65QDPM7+oXZDryTwFD8tvB2ZydyU8B9puAmTBJAn/aFDiW4NmUtTjuFgaoilmKBsPIlEAyfvtrIbmsUqunKFnlN7sH7I0/vsmb/I3zXYcfAQ2FvVlTIpQzu+d2ZF5h+QvaWM8C52orfV9A2RMqVEzvuUqDxiJ+82uynJeF0THmBqW8 Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 26 Mar 2018 20:13:10 -0000 Date: 26 Mar 2018 21:13:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: dmarc@ietf.org User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Strange dmarc lookups X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 26 Mar 2018 20:13:13 -0000 A friend looking at DNS traces says he's seeing a lot of queries like this. _dmarc.78.0x18.00000143.0031 The numbers vary, some don't have the 0x. Any idea what it is? The _dmarc suggest something thinks it's finding those domains on From: lines but I'm having trouble imagining what it is. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Mon Mar 26 22:06:53 2018 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 46FF612711D for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:52 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 zfJoq6rg7j5t for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 5E193124D37 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z143-v6so31386503lff.3 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=8CKPAYpeVfr87TJ3f/9nVd99lL5/xZVWDeLE3PsbI44=; b=drXqQLNkT61If5enUrhQjbIaEZAhQwOJe8o+mb6X+R6B15g/Rlll60mF7AiKUGReL9 OhfTRyfHgCDVFnOUgP/xNLeoUZGiyESuQvr7w3rRdzVNtxe0S4hVWG29VACnh4JDyAy+ NWvqZsDiw821O1J4/kDrYNDH7hQnviC0hRmfA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8CKPAYpeVfr87TJ3f/9nVd99lL5/xZVWDeLE3PsbI44=; b=m8uTimN2Z29AIPQSfpxvmjsRgyAfAbrIHQd4Vq+xOWvscbs6qRa+5oYwHzEdh6ix6t NrQovjkUnMmbfDtp3EjinUwSSTltT+ezj67G7Z1mxjlMeu349yInwNSiFCx/e7BeRWfd WKmiZan5hm59uUAMRZNF7hQWhmAPRjS96seCPcGWUTGZ7mOKbF6+nP6/MSW6eVjrSBEM h0ZPwYEyNoPgPbWoG/rHwcmHfDiglvyMknxa1m/Fcx+SVQb6ouKQxC9P0AEBDZXCxwiy 4EP5OsXsiM5TkG80nMHIjEOgMBxcuj96vjm7GeycmTapM5J7gau6+ECSTClbVMwBZ1Gz FglQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H4Fk2kwF2leA9Slm1az/Tz6r22kJbRmheK3nJDuVVP+hliF/Ht aENCo1U/HL0yeM906AgdM38P0H/ubKbCaqzvSUcVdP1V X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuQzQ/GXg+xeIAOF1bnbPlgDYuq3fEg9jl16vysRq5nkLF+Ca1l/HNbY32syhuq14QyjGfhmtSGKhMmmg5yb+4= X-Received: by 2002:a19:cbd5:: with SMTP id b204-v6mr29079071lfg.116.1522127208532; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 2002:a19:e504:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:06:47 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fTsdvcMRby3s7CXvjA2KyuqnQxc Message-ID: To: "John R. Levine" Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000915fda05685ddbb3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Strange dmarc lookups X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:06:52 -0000 --000000000000915fda05685ddbb3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Looks like an abuse campaign doing what it can to mask sending from something like a direct IP based address like @[w.x.y.z] - in this case the IP is reportedly in Madrid. --Kurt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:13 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > A friend looking at DNS traces says he's seeing a lot of queries like this. > > _dmarc.78.0x18.00000143.0031 > > The numbers vary, some don't have the 0x. Any idea what it is? The > _dmarc suggest something thinks it's finding those domains on From: lines > but I'm having trouble imagining what it is. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > --000000000000915fda05685ddbb3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Looks like an abuse campaign doing what it can to mask sen= ding from something like a direct IP based address like @[w.x.y.z] - in thi= s case the IP is reportedly in Madrid.

--Kurt

On Mon, Mar 26, = 2018 at 1:13 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
A friend looking at DNS traces says he's see= ing a lot of queries like this.

_dmarc.78.0x18.00000143.0031

The numbers vary, some don't have the 0x.=C2=A0 Any idea what it is?=C2= =A0 The _dmarc suggest something thinks it's finding those domains on F= rom: lines but I'm having trouble imagining what it is.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc= .com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

--000000000000915fda05685ddbb3--