IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 391813A0FCC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 BRqjLJ71Im5j for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (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 E1A673A0FC6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id j13so78302vsn.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dYBxXK4aTf/GMfwdX71CeJPS5M4nzHHGMppXyLnWk90=; b=azzrnGIHwNillh87UbeCNmuELUahYQCO/AgV3zQvsr1vj109sa1d5IEWoBF2ecplTq Nlo2eo83r+0vQpv39BfR7F24DwcsmnjnALwwn1XpuooBIU3IxAtoOD5UUUMGCcIoMO0O dlovLowPIoXdjnBUhw7xi7xFNvJPrMcfEf3KeqQ5Ylu3QQ6Z0rXpV4wHf5AXlwUcNNBa uI2vGGqsVTX7yxSHoWU3kurXiRl5apPLha+n+0kugMFje7Mh9SG41Wjzo9P/itzwnDu7 w3v3bfvEhKrhWfccespRSo4gKFQnW1+QihA3nazUDvmzLimTJrpHlhNwHhQ8bMYc80Mk RcPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dYBxXK4aTf/GMfwdX71CeJPS5M4nzHHGMppXyLnWk90=; b=RAhLis9aovftMzeptt2kt9p/P7QB5UReWGAAof5EebtMcqhTP4JMhg9saAX+Ks+s9o 6PznoSSWPUUzC+kTn8bY4LKjiJAK9riCafaJVDomr8Pc+GdUI7F5mu3MeEqjj5QfdFDy BdeQqil8+J/CN4pKc9KKrBZXCOhAFVlbk5cPCfhuHcH/lPBsumeJP5ypyzkRdz6cFYVJ tvqBkWymyp/eJUlT5fHLedtbKgufjAluiXR9ojcPNG/mGy9VQ/GieQldug5RfsebkJke p8oeKHO1D3Px18sBZe8x/io2qsZ+M1QLVV9hrjpsgMVvVmpwFhgeO0XZM6qBvHcf13ua s4gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533uZuh8M0ZMD0kkA4lRN7UYdcWLcOMmq9aXQOx09d2IHC2INAav 9uq9EfHuob3RKAGcpTbtR7djC2IPuaKCcMSwQMc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLwJwqFRW+nKGbIn2GZ/G8rgeQUvk2c9YT1Gtbs5GnqUlWd36Lent6dfu5z1VBd/ft4iP0H4epmMqhL2/vjBw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:cc7:: with SMTP id 190mr493548vsm.7.1591130180778; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM5PR0601MB367115AD49513EAF3953716CF68B0@DM5PR0601MB3671.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <18441e8d-cf87-053e-4957-7b9d6ea9690c@gmail.com> <CABa8R6s7Lh_nihfH4Y8=JFCDFL6T_iEd+dBf7C=iW+5S3K4i3A@mail.gmail.com> <1093905c-7556-ab65-ae9f-6c97d1707878@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1093905c-7556-ab65-ae9f-6c97d1707878@gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:36:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYm=QnSLQ_n_+xq_vvEh47TJT+HXZKem5uKhtfRotKAbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000377f4b05a71fdd7a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6WccpkXgMIpYz6yRW4D172HIK5w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC alignment conflicts with RFC 5322 on the use of the From and Sender header fields
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 Jun 2020 20:36:23 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:01 AM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your comment implies that what is displayed to the user is important in
> anti-abuse efforts, but there is no data to support that view, and some
> significant data to support the view that that's wrong.  (cf, the
> extensive literature review that was done during early BIMI discussions.)
>

That's a curious assertion given all of the energy that's gone into
complaining about but never really resolving the "display name" problem
over the years.  I thought that was a key part of the vector of many
successful phishing attacks.

I suppose it's possible that operators came up with this problem and
decided it needs solving, with no user complaints like "I was fooled by
this fake From, can't you do something about that?" on which to base that.

Hasn't M3AAWG at least had something other than anecdata that this is a
true source of pain?

DMARC is a triumph of infrastructure operator demands over end-user
> experience.  it's created a markedly Procrustean email identification
> environment.
>
> The standards and the practice, for 45 years, have permitted certain
> freedoms in the From: field and DMARC eliminated them.
>
> It's easy to be cavalier about this, since some operators run highly
> controlled environments and have no incentives for paying attention to
> those who have used those freedoms legitimately, for 45 years.
>

No reply here, just felt like citing this again.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email