Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
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 B6599120123 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:12:52 -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_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=FBgDFAKE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=CvXvk0In
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 sUXFAZQvasiM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA52A12011E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9254F80920; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1554765168; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=ph1xxQNYWcQuFjqaKATzt3VcOCNEkU7hbfY3nMoI7vk=; b=FBgDFAKEIlVebhL0y5om6HMNZAXaaxUIrxQQIyKomUaW7mRG9EzIGP/m X+7lAnlsXUjKBfbaBmJyltp6uLyhBg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1554765168; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=ph1xxQNYWcQuFjqaKATzt3VcOCNEkU7hbfY3nMoI7vk=; b=CvXvk0InnxZX5ehkDNG9NIdBvRJBg8mFzUJMXE5+LYP/ugfy/9EYxH7H 1crhGMg/bSH18tQkZxiknY4mSav7ZUek5AwH4lYfywZwjqDM/XWTKbqpRx 8jYMy0Dw9jDtiQaJZlapdKMN9vg0YcTGumkTi3o8k4lf8UF6naBo2Nslj/ nPTaekh8LDLS4f9PxtIx6HuRMWV0iBpiwZtNfobA4wX4gOtpOQH1OYgkfy u65jAn9uQ2tq7dLVLv1pHCPU5UuFwfrygwG2mtcSwMAMRsczlsibqZIHyy nw8Ar7ol1akdKxGov9sPmdC/iaMywGtF/9na4feVgqkrE300nEyg7g==
Received: from [10.82.211.29] (mobile-166-170-31-60.mycingular.net [166.170.31.60]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41C27F807D4; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:12:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qdU4TbL3okQnNMn6yr+xODFfBG6o9ZOwJ1SgdjGJ95nA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com> <CABuGu1qdU4TbL3okQnNMn6yr+xODFfBG6o9ZOwJ1SgdjGJ95nA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <08693A61-D3AD-448D-B64C-B36262756C65@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-yI-pvci522otu8O1h5yJktECM4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:12:53 -0000


On April 8, 2019 11:08:30 PM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:55 PM Douglas E. Foster <
>fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to express my shock at today's conversations.   One
>of
>> the shocks comes from this:
>>
>> We have consensus that the better email filters do not need the DMARC
>for
>> PSDs standard, because they are already blocking non-existent
>domains.
>>
>
>This neglects the benefit to the domain operators of receiving the
>reports
>about abuse of their domain space. For the end recipient of the bogus
>traffic, there is no difference.
>
>
>> The inferior email filters are not expected to implement this
>feature,
>> because they are inferior products.
>>
>
>Somewhat tautological, but most likely true.
>
>
>> Therefore the new standard has no expected benefit, but we need to
>finish
>> it anyway.
>>
>
>Incorrect - see my first point.

The entire thing is further premised on the false premise that because two small mail operators find one filtering technique appropriate for their situation and scale, anyone that has a different design is inferior.

Scott K