Re: [dmarc-ietf] Response to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 22 July 2020 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 67B5E3A0C20 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 N1qNZnSsqq3o for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 B10323A0919 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 06MDQDuT024521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:26:13 -0700
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <cd9258e6-3917-2380-dd9b-66d74f3a64d3@gmail.com> <20200717210053.674D61D2C431@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwbkhG-qUyGqxaEjcFn2Lb7wPMhcPFEMA8eqptBJpePPxA@mail.gmail.com> <8efcf71c-f841-46a4-10b7-feb41a741405@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbK7GQXkiS+H8GtsvHMzWr4o431Shc7Cc9MhqsTiHfzFw@mail.gmail.com> <bc7ed18c-8f1d-b41b-0a4b-3aa180a63563@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYgs7py1aTQ87pykNT_0dpnrKz=+1DxMMSQMgbwz4XZDg@mail.gmail.com> <5AF00366-DB28-41CB-A1C4-F5BCA77EC969@wordtothewise.com> <CAL0qLwZRYb4yk_WJKizR0UA97XK3VedfZw73YgyTPHuOpxZQhQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A436C27-CECC-46DD-B365-1FCF9366E64F@wordtothewise.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <d71be01e-af9c-7bb1-a8d0-b384039c4e94@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:23:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9A436C27-CECC-46DD-B365-1FCF9366E64F@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5fNOr7ccan4qPIyMSLs3v6228WE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Response to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations
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, 22 Jul 2020 13:23:54 -0000

On 7/21/2020 1:08 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
> When we’re basing a protocol on “what the user sees” and “what the 
> user can trust” then I think we have to. DMARC says “users can trust 
> that mail from @domain.example is really from @domain.example” but if 
> the user never sees that, how do they know? 


I think this can be connected to the query about threats that DMARC is 
intended to respond to, by virtue of suggesting clarity about /where/ 
the responding takes place.

My contention is that it takes place in a receiving filtering engine and 
does not take place at the user level.

Further, it's one more data point in that engine's analysis process, 
rather than being in any simple way definitive.

In any event, work here really should make a point of creating text that 
is clear about threats DMARC is intended to respond to, and clear about 
where such responding takes place.

To the extent any of that text makes assertions about the performance of 
end users, it needs to cite the basis for the assertions.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net