[dmarc-ietf] Can we put the psd tag in the IANA registry now?

2022-08-12 Thread John Levine
Since we seem close to agreement on the tree walk text, and and it uses the psd tag, can we ask IANA to add psd=u/n/y to the registry, please? R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread John Levine
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said: >> If you trust the mailing list signature, doesn't that also mean you trust >> the list to behave "well"? If that's true, then why do you need Author? > >I trust the list to not allow attacks featuring spoofed Author:. (Spoofed >From: are possible but

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread Dotzero
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 12:28 PM John R Levine wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> When Dave proposed the Author header, part of the idea was that DMARC > could > >> use it rather than From. > > > > IIRC that was the Sender: field. > > No, DMARC decided not to use Sender b

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread John R Levine
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote: When Dave proposed the Author header, part of the idea was that DMARC could use it rather than From. IIRC that was the Sender: field. No, DMARC decided not to use Sender back when DMARC was new. Dave suggested using Author to work around the Fro

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Time to work on failure reporting

2022-08-12 Thread John R Levine
The Source-Port field is non-standard so I'd take it out. Defined by RFC 6692. So it is. ARF is such a mess. I'd change text/rfc822-headers to message/rfc822 and add ther a message body or something like [ Message body was here ] Why? I chose a body-less example as it looks more privacy-

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 11/Aug/2022 18:26:38 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: A domain owner can know, for instance, that it only sends transactional messages that have no purpose to ever go to a mailing list.  Such an operator can safely set "p=reject" because the risk of the collateral damage about which we'r

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 11/Aug/2022 19:47:17 +0200 John R Levine wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: It only works if all or most lists add Author (none do today, and it would take a long time to get this rolled out if they started), and no other software co-opts and mutates it for whatever r

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Girl Scout troops vs MLM problems (#70)

2022-08-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Fri 12/Aug/2022 08:46:45 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 3:16 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: That's the /complicated/ de-munging strategy. The much simpler approach I described upthread would work 100% of cases for lists that add the Author: field. It is a little le

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Time to work on failure reporting

2022-08-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 11/Aug/2022 21:06:31 +0200 John R Levine wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote: I added an example, see https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/blob/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.txt#L528 I just picked a report I received and anon