Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 02 February 2021 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 13F443A15D9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 PUsDsK9zBhlF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 B47993A1488 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id t25so13594930pga.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=uU9yrn9S+vzDseTuOIjzB4ZUr0zUTIvtFDD0zavJw/g=; b=RJdTojy9by+tPSpMuih2IKYYsZYhsIt/Mtrj+y8hQywLajRmIZCY3J/FMCWOtJpmeT Me19yMLb96KxzdUJqATXM6DXVqdRtpVPqtsO63UfNEBD+1sNmPcUbka8Od4a9obNnvTy W36sxNDqgE4LCQK8FaBYAsnh+JWCCxpuLXvHdRRC57aYUYnF5rEXx6RAoZ3u+Evmffvt p0VGpqhkq6Yzq1zXIrHi6F0tl/h0+lHaccPkj+AUD+jzRe8LjsWm1PHm+O1oLXzoPtNX u2tPg8s6EbBoqst69gE9zxWYX9JGkmYsoVuDe1ZNHdyOjjmPvfnexFQxYcTqgbspShVh KWSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=uU9yrn9S+vzDseTuOIjzB4ZUr0zUTIvtFDD0zavJw/g=; b=NAira8QvO5PVjIeFY2aI1m4jPzrLSztJ9ZKaxLOvJ7t1YeEsqCubRj7sZ9tZYhjkWm k+4J/JoLJE9LVm9ept6t07P93kFtoB+bt5SsSUQs81Dw4XifTXTkO6rWkdr+MtEM2APh xT8xI/2Z089YpWrGacSTN9x5PNHZBwo87uxMG5n0dwK6shIVp7gtbtUHjIyX4OleDJja HABk411BPIhSMXXhVXYASWx/ERobHD/DUvClw65iB0c9Ot6d4pT25JacimkI5ayWjeeP BycqFWY6O0lEjKXtEth4KJk2Ld1LzxtaaqVSkyptmuLcFeo/wiwJ6ipYXpIS0OPiUklo 5hRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531uzSVTo6CwmGJ9PLIsCrk/fKVJNFBRu+cninEEdRHdj5COjvGi FdnEYyzHPxoq1jTRZ72FXjg0dwI1sV0dtw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwnnWXkCwjcW2Tv4cy0eHVwEDq5h0EAg3SfB+2JjnHS+xAE7QclhIRc5YUhknKabB/lGhVtNQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7e10:: with SMTP id z16mr19541816pgc.263.1612224780833; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-37-188.volcanocom.com. [107.182.37.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm20291783pga.63.2021.02.01.16.12.59 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:00 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210201232105.1931D6D20971@ary.qy> <41163cd5-be81-6fd7-07dd-7a474874429e@gmail.com> <044c4a55-facb-9053-1ae9-0b8d87c7ca3a@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYeHxhZyAsMBJfjDn7XFSeFt39agjoFQRBTbMZ0zdvaLyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <38f5c417-3c7d-72c9-2590-391c07226164@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:12:57 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYeHxhZyAsMBJfjDn7XFSeFt39agjoFQRBTbMZ0zdvaLyg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A744D667EA4A5547DE1CFCD8"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/44_PIGAjlBuw_cKjktrxDtvT9VM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:13:03 -0000

On 2/1/21 4:05 PM, Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:49 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2/1/21 3:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>     > On 2/1/2021 3:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
>     >> I find it hard to believe that if you are going to enough effort to
>     >> maintain the data to create and send reports, you can't figure
>     out how
>     >> to install an SPF record for your reporting domain.
>     >
>     > Except that the tracking/reporting functions are completely
>     separate
>     > from the 'signing' side of DMARC and could easily be different
>     parts
>     > of a company.
>     >
>     > d/
>     >
>     It strains credulity that one part of a company would want to send
>     out
>     reports when some other can't even sign their email. Both need
>     access to
>     the email stream for starters.
>
> It doesn't strain my credulity at all. You are assuming a single mail 
> stream. I saw it at my own employer before we got centralized control 
> of DNS and implemented email authentication. I actually know of one 
> company where several hundred thousand dollars of marketing emails 
> ended up not getting through because a marketer thought they could 
> evade corporate policy and the ESP gladly took the money even though 
> the mail was getting rejected. It's a crazy world out there.


So we're supposed to ignore security considerations because... some 
companies are a mess? That's what this really boils down to. If we're 
writing specs for the least common denominator we might just as well 
stop. But we're not, nor have we ever.

Mike