IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be)

"Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com> Wed, 12 April 2023 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <eric@infobro.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 35794C17B336 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <5N8kGGqcrcy4>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): X-Spam-Report: ...infobro.com for details. Content previ[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=infobro.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5N8kGGqcrcy4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from diamond.home.infobro.com (green.infobro.com [208.58.75.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFC2BC13AE59 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infobro.com; s=infobro; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version; bh=fPiklYegfWZ738oYIWgtBs92vdVqN/ffcOzht2eryH8=; b=WK0p1QT0H7OS+anW2cYnG3pct3qFru3dDjRjv2xuL+6WYecpV8oQynGHU9TQI78eE1cUGukBnLotGp70Rk5Lj/tM/26Fjb4FVyhmy07jgeaRGX6HJA+kFuLNOQKuh8EFXO/6wrAkof7N+IKpay58Mo73O3gjup6kNTzfadC1h0U=;
Received: from mail-qv1-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]) by diamond.home.infobro.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eric@infobro.com>) id 1pmjbh-0006jj-QI for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 23:10:35 +0000
Received: by mail-qv1-f53.google.com with SMTP id lz6so9117635qvb.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dyenc0euD96w49zpkm4WUlbddTUlz2H6yWqeAdsPYySUM4O7wR r1CupQg6nlz61K9Fhqi3NIiN1xKTPhbe5BJmQSo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZJZdsCk3kNQzaOpTM3pXUAAH7emovH+sIlT6ekiQ22FkS8C44WjEsCEGxaRm+T9WkFOmKsdLPxzoqa3V0wKZI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:a4a:b0:56f:36e:fbf with SMTP id ee10-20020a0562140a4a00b0056f036e0fbfmr46594qvb.4.1681341028860; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230408135930.B1F69BC829D7@ary.qy> <74f52cb3-e5fe-a78f-97c5-7b0cd53f1216@tana.it> <dc83751e-0a52-c9e2-fa9b-082ceea8c7f5@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <dc83751e-0a52-c9e2-fa9b-082ceea8c7f5@taugh.com>
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:10:17 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAKMzGW6f+Um05GHqCh9439ha2eVTTATUOQxWjes=bQrJ0-H8ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKMzGW6f+Um05GHqCh9439ha2eVTTATUOQxWjes=bQrJ0-H8ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc@ietf.org, eric@infobro.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5877a05f92bb60a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3kAPQruoxcS_VhR226whxRFTupc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] THIS IS ABUSE (it might be)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 12 Apr 2023 23:10:41 -0000

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:30 AM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > On Sat 08/Apr/2023 15:59:30 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> >> It appears that Eric D. Williams  <eric@infobro.com> said:
> >>> -=-=-=-=-=-
> >>>
> >>> I think the reliance upon list operators is properly placed on that
> role.
> >>> It's not a DMARC problem, it's a DKIM problem, I think.
> >>
> >> No, it's a DMARC problem. DKIM didn't cause any problems for mailing
> lists
> >> (ignoring ill-advised and never used ADSP) until DMARC was layered on
> top
> >> of it, and AOL and Yahoo abused it to foist the support costs on the
> rest
> >> of the world after they let crooks steal their users' address books.
> >
>

I disagree.  Despite the failure of adoption of ADSP, which is not a new
thing by any stretch - we've seen that before, if we are talking about
mailing lists the real answer is ARC not DMARC, that's what I'm saying. It's
a failure with DKIM signature invalidation as a result of relaying via
mailing lists.


> > That's how it happened.  Can we now accept their push?  After so many
> email
> > addresses became public, how about accepting that email addresses being
> > public doesn't have to imply that anyone can impersonate them?
>
> No, that's not what happened.  People had been faking AOL and Yahoo
> addresses forever and the providers dealt with it.  The problem was that
> spammers used the stolen address books to send spam from the addresses of
> people the recipients knew, and they were flooded with complaints "why are
> my friends spamming me."  It's entirely the fault of those providers'
> poor security.
>
> Re impersonating, until DMARC can tell the difference between
> impersonation and the kinds of ordinary forwarding we've been doing since
> the 1980s, nope.
>

Now, perhaps I misunderstood the original thread, so I'll cop to that, but
I will assert that although DMARC can certainly provide some legitimacy
assurances it certainly does have a gap with impersonation, particularly
manifested with maillist relaying in many common configurations.


>
> R's,
> John
>

/r/

-e


-- 
Eric D. Williams <eric@infobro.com>
PGP Public Key
http://new.infobro.com/KeyServ/EricDWilliams.asc
Finger Print: 1055 8AED 9783 2378 73EF  7B19 0544 A590 FF65 B789

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email