Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Wed, 20 March 2019 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 E07A4131165 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:30 -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 kIxHMQtzh6RN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 33B3E131141 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id y3so1908209pgk.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:29 -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=en0NC60k+Q19/sdkBRI3nMOqAErEMkDvuHJti8BujrM=; b=bI9vhiejCKKFcS0wv1wJ0uWQ/umvr4WUsLE75GuHQ9mkuzlShJOxjHUzJCHmfg5bR/ T3Li2/yitJnKjnTaLfuHCkn4hICcH7LTMfgB9QU8eV3zQPwdMF6V/mVN/eewqA8zBW42 w9B1svHaeacLNTC1RNsdbylvyAy4VojcKFsorDy0gUg2Fe2O9JbYIluSqTilw0TMSDtX fejfGuorhvx6SYt7kC6h3jVGF7PPPmd9xf5I7LZF2H4HYRHCnHf3gpsCaWtUIoUsWR2C 8l3Iej98LmHp2n4tG0endHMNMOYc7ZYL/MVAeYq6QSi9oJgvsE2/tEU5uiXKyUv30Yo7 Zgtw==
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=en0NC60k+Q19/sdkBRI3nMOqAErEMkDvuHJti8BujrM=; b=mWkJ+FxoU/YSw1+T58063xPUUdbbHdeMbBVupS3pdaE8qi3Rl/c8SbK0NHD6RV1VWT pm33+GH0M2OfSpA5/SwEdPVBgm+y7EAN+6YRv2S+Pl9/+V2FnjvWfCqje2UmiuMcDFCk MNtbUSFMUmvSECw0dcQVJRsB26diBoZH04r2M6fXTS+bCdU2FovIff6jYoz8391/oNaP pwJrLgjMzU89Kzk+Zo0TGawJi4YxQ+NM60FXpdG9Zbk2bzPFiBdgrUVeglVcvcLko+E9 afa5e00lEylykbl2McKpONX1LDhFCwjwfvJ/NGY4nKWmvf7L8W2UKled5hUC/FbHlKiR +O/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWlByc08ayYMO5migdqoFCJeGiMHkZA3NsmvjPdyVwS9xx5mAIu hbEWJr4wKAT/npQCqsabYLwKLijU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWSTUXj+H3448rlR0E+7zeCeBj0ggd4foVwQ7Nfzb412b7WQoW6lYcXieRdHI6fKnJWaR+vQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e106:: with SMTP id z6mr28699327pgh.418.1553091927794; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:d188:aa4a:7cf9:309a? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:d188:aa4a:7cf9:309a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r82sm5084427pfa.161.2019.03.20.07.25.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>, DAMY gustavo <gustavo.DAMY@upu.int>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <1dc451a973a8443a87d37b6e5c41fe38@bayviewphysicians.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903181355520.5419@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <90b936ec488f41108bc4e528eb7933f6@PEXC01.upu.ch> <002a01d4de81$18ac27b0$4a047710$@bayviewphysicians.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903191935400.4731@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <8e26770d45b14816b3a5b9da33acf83a@PEXC01.upu.ch> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903201505510.7108@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98e1d7e3-625e-ac9c-fd13-f25b5c380e3f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:25:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903201505510.7108@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1m3fc6JxjqhI7kaw_xSGCZvVI-w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:25:32 -0000

On 3/20/2019 7:22 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> 
>> But pEp is also based on MIME (which requires trust on at least one 
>> centralized CA which falls into the centralized infrastructure isn't 
>> it ?)
> 
> MIME does not require a centralized CA. I presume your mean S/MIME. pEp 
> is not based on S/MIME. However, pEp is working on interoperability with 
> S/MIME.


well, mime uses IANA for registering types, and that's certainly a 
centralized operation...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net