From nobody Fri Jul 11 13:25:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B101B297D for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 nE7aEpmxvdDZ for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAE41A0406 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CE79F18001B; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) To: superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20140711202501.CE79F18001B@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/q8aUE8-ptlBTiMaPberKzkhi_NE Cc: n-roeser@gmx.net, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [spfbis] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6686 (4049) X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:25:40 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6686, "Resolution of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Sender ID Experiments". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6686&eid=4049 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Nico Roeser Section: 2 Original Text ------------- Resource Record (RR) type. These are always expressed internally in software as numbers, assigned according to the procedures in [DNS-IANA] Assigned RRTYPEs also have names. The two of interest in Corrected Text -------------- Resource Record (RR) type. These are always expressed internally in software as numbers, assigned according to the procedures in [DNS-IANA]. Assigned RRTYPEs also have names. The two of interest in Notes ----- Wrong punctuation: missing period and space. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6686 (draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Resolution of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Sender ID Experiments Publication Date : July 2012 Author(s) : M. Kucherawy Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : SPF Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Fri Jul 11 15:02:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170671B29D5; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 0aqZCKWYjzxr; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3932C1B29CD; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A692B180095; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:03 -0700 (PDT) To: n-roeser@gmx.net, superuser@gmail.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20140711220203.A692B180095@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/FIdOhgBZce8clJQGBjLHFCkzMaE Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [spfbis] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6686 (4049) X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:02:43 -0000 The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC6686, "Resolution of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Sender ID Experiments". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6686&eid=4049 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Nico Roeser Date Reported: 2014-07-11 Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG) Section: 2 Original Text ------------- Resource Record (RR) type. These are always expressed internally in software as numbers, assigned according to the procedures in [DNS-IANA] Assigned RRTYPEs also have names. The two of interest in Corrected Text -------------- Resource Record (RR) type. These are always expressed internally in software as numbers, assigned according to the procedures in [DNS-IANA]. Assigned RRTYPEs also have names. The two of interest in Notes ----- Wrong punctuation: missing period and space. ----- Verifier Notes ----- We don't use errata reports for insignificant typos. -------------------------------------- RFC6686 (draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Resolution of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Sender ID Experiments Publication Date : July 2012 Author(s) : M. Kucherawy Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : SPF Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Sun Jul 20 09:45:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9453A1B2871; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham 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 cvnFVvoCpNax; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B071B2875; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.46.25] ([38.99.173.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6KGdG3P025101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:19 -0700 Message-ID: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:37:25 -0400 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SMTP Discuss X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/U7uBVyzMtOxc3THdYrynEwAamKU X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:45:55 -0700 Subject: [spfbis] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:39:22 -0000 Hi folks. I submitted an Errata on RFC 5321 that was rejected due to logic that is proving a bit challenging to understand. http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4055 So I thought I'd check with the SMTP, SPF and DKIM communities to get some broader review for the substantive issue, before considering alternative process paths. Simply put: RFC 5321 has some text about SPF and DKIM that is simply wrong. Given the continuing community confusion about what SPF and DKIM do and do not do, I think that having the SMTP document perpetuate erroneous views is significantly problematic. I've checked the archive of around the time the text was introduced. Other that a brief exchange about the 'nature' of DKIM, I don't see any messages on this topic. I'd appreciate comments on the factual issues here. I don't want to discuss the Errata process. Just the technical issues. If folks think my characterization of the error is either correct or incorrect, please say so and explain. If you think it can be documented better, please offer text! (I've BCC'd the SPF and DKIM lists, to make sure that everyone there sees this. But please post any followups to the SMTP list.) Thanks! d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From SRS0=L8Suk=4Q==stuart@gathman.org Mon Jul 21 08:32:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C2B1A0202 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I02RFZyib6xN for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gathman.org (mail.gathman.org [IPv6:2001:470:5:c85::10]) (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 DF4D01A006D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: mail.gathman.org; iprev=pass policy.iprev="2001:470:8:809:11::1015" (silver.gathman.org); auth=pass (PLAIN sslbits=128) smtp.auth=stuart DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gathman.org; i=@gathman.org; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1405956714; h=Message-ID : Date : From : MIME-Version : To : CC : Subject : References : In-Reply-To : Content-Type : Content-Transfer-Encoding : Date : From : Subject; bh=4BXkeXxat4NVnd1ZrIs42G7cRz+ctg2DqgjdbVTUUQw=; b=Cl+Lk9lWada4vGIbFAqaUve90LcjpAJjbgnfvQNTDdFmXHRmmNJ2C1WgQq8ir+mnnQyIj9 /iBrZgPSYuLCFZ0NX8YPQp8EYgIs7zO2iTgBtyqv0QXHAkef3qqxrYbbBbDW/3whuZ6Way2l eGMGaW7aCNCbXH6W6dkWYLsWXCMv8= Received: from silver.gathman.org (silver.gathman.org [IPv6:2001:470:8:809:11::1015]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.gathman.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6LFVqm9014576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:31:54 -0400 Message-ID: <53CD3269.3050604@gathman.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:31:28 -0400 From: Stuart Gathman Organization: BWI Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spfbis@ietf.org References: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/-QqLl5ZP1TniFTDXJetTwfVdvBc Cc: dhc@dcrocker.net Subject: Re: [spfbis] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:38:39 -0000 On 07/20/2014 12:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Hi folks. > > I submitted an Errata on RFC 5321 that was rejected due to logic that is > proving a bit challenging to understand. > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4055 > > So I thought I'd check with the SMTP, SPF and DKIM communities to get > some broader review for the substantive issue, before considering > alternative process paths. > > Simply put: > > RFC 5321 has some text about SPF and DKIM that is > simply wrong. > > Given the continuing community confusion about what > SPF and DKIM do and do not do, I think that having > the SMTP document perpetuate erroneous views is > significantly problematic. > > I've checked the archive of around the time the text was introduced. > Other that a brief exchange about the 'nature' of DKIM, I don't see any > messages on this topic. > > I'd appreciate comments on the factual issues here. I don't want to > discuss the Errata process. Just the technical issues. > > If folks think my characterization of the error is either correct or > incorrect, please say so and explain. If you think it can be documented > better, please offer text! Well, the obvious problem is that DKIM does not address RFC 5321 MAIL FROM at all! (It can address the Return-Path header field.) As far as SPF goes, what do they mean by "valid"? 1) capable of delivering a DSN (MAIL FROM <>) - SPF does not address this at all 2) used in an ethical and constructive manner (see FUSSP) - SPF does not address this either 3) used by MTAs authorized by the domain in the domain part via DNS - this is what SPF actually does Your comment was incorrect about not "validating" the entire address. SPF does, in fact, provide a way to "validate" (authorize) the localpart via macros (a feature protested vigorously by some). Note, while DKIM is a way for the MTA to sign emails and selected header fields, by signing the From header field, this effectively "validates" the From address as being part of a message authorized/signed by an MTA that knows the private key of the public key published in DNS for the domain. This is irrelevant for RFC 5321, however, which is concerned with the SMTP envelope. As to "belongs to the person who actually sent the email", that is the province of end to end crypto (see PGP MIME). No MTA protocol can address that. > (I've BCC'd the SPF and DKIM lists, to make sure that everyone there > sees this. But please post any followups to the SMTP list.) I'm not currently on the SMTP list. As to the acual text, I wouldn't delete it - you DO want to mention other standards attempting to address the problems implied by the word "valid address". While DKIM does not address the SMTP envelope, it is still a good pointer. The main thing is that RFC 5321 does not address the problem, and the existing text makes that clear. From nobody Mon Jul 21 10:25:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084BC1A0329 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:25:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham 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 Aa2HKD07Ov6k for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9F41A0308 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.133.179.11] (dhcp-b30b.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6LHOvil029187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:25:00 -0700 Message-ID: <53CD4C7A.5030507@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:23:06 -0400 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stuart Gathman , spfbis@ietf.org References: <53CBF045.7060205@dcrocker.net> <53CD3269.3050604@gathman.org> In-Reply-To: <53CD3269.3050604@gathman.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/KtZo4YSZeFJoIYvyCv5bGdUEP5o Subject: Re: [spfbis] Error in RFC 5321 concerning SPF and DKIM X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:25:09 -0000 Please reply to the smtp list. As I indicated, that is where the discussion on this is happening. Thanks. d/ On 7/21/2014 11:31 AM, Stuart Gathman wrote: > Well, the obvious problem is that DKIM does not address RFC 5321 MAIL > FROM at all! (It can address the Return-Path header field.) > > As far as SPF goes, what do they mean by "valid"? ... -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net