Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 66DE3130F85 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:49:22 -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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=1davU6sH; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cLWqMIuF
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 rwY7Dyxcgwpy for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:49:20 -0800 (PST)
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 F0960130F80 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 787 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2019 00:49:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=30f.5c3e7f8e.k1901; bh=TuxP29Zr71gJNc3i7EjSvtU3ip1lxTEF3n2l8atMiuE=; b=1davU6sH/NncWikFLx3O/pqJ00WhuJ08eyGYL+euUOzmJH7WB96skNjAUYFeXuCiBGKDJk03ricn9r53m6lsreXj+fvV0LE3xBZHk8fvTRpByc9AouAMkv1SJaF/rmlbg5spzEjUChlMwEa09TKfsiNXcd76Tw1equeyQtUcdkGALiAJhVEk9wmaptoYtjmJEA+2c/6R7pe9ZdPXNT8y1Mu9CFlqm1nWoRtXiRyiPrrqHGlaEk9uQWNab2W56Ez9
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=30f.5c3e7f8e.k1901; bh=TuxP29Zr71gJNc3i7EjSvtU3ip1lxTEF3n2l8atMiuE=; b=cLWqMIuFDCVirMpRwolmmBy/B4baXpr8d/xiAv34YObfWM16yAB3cJYZ5MIpcp4JqNmyHVyec7cqAw4FfdLeNXIpX78HIf6o3dhMuO4Hl5lB3Fs/Cq/FlbGxP+DqaSylvz+plEBY0Ts2ylSKOOXvet1zF8xv1DQBuhInqF4nimHjQ1tYV3y+H7sWLaxh7MyQ28ksrQm6WscEr6F4FlJbxuHKe7Ev2JYO3oBlMUP+un3Qiy46zVcxtL6kZ8nKrE3z
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 16 Jan 2019 00:49:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 22F1A200CACCFC; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:49:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: 15 Jan 2019 19:49:17 -0500
Message-Id: <20190116004918.22F1A200CACCFC@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <5126347.eOcQ2jtf8Q@kitterma-e6430>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3BdkPCjkRd8-KSOoQof0UrQ3uoU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt
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, 16 Jan 2019 00:49:23 -0000

In article <5126347.eOcQ2jtf8Q@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>This update removes the IANA registry (which is what I think I was supposed to 
>do based on the feedback to date).  I also bulked up the Privacy/Security 
>considerations descriptions since they are no longer mitigated.
>
>I'd like feedback on the best path forward.  Essentially this draft replaces 
>the IANA registry with an undefined way to know where PSD DMARC is 
>appropriate.  I think we need something better than that, but I didn't know 
>what.

The more I look at this, the less I understand what problem it solves.
If you manage a zone that can publish a PSD policy, you have some kind
of relationship with the zone members so you should be auditing their
policies anyway.

To take a non-random example, I looked at the 2700 names in .BANK.
There are 122 with no DMARC at all, which PSD might help, but there
are also 164 with p=none, 29 with p=quarantine, 7 with pct=N where N
is not 100, 4 with multiple policies, and about 30 where the DMARC
record is invalid.  Assuming your goal is to get everyone to p=none,
PSD doesn't impress me as offering significant help.

R's,
John