Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 14 December 2018 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 C8DFF13102D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:17:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=rq2ZcRVN; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=PiAmAqdN
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 95JrY1tIepqu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softlayer.kitterman.com (softlayer.kitterman.com [169.62.11.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F284131000 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:17:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812e; t=1544761073; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=GCXMiEf7NIUyNpymgFJCM167gbKWRImJqTAnqAkVhhE=; b=rq2ZcRVNgBz67VwqsW+L8W6nYY+MLd0LfHKHSrR4aq59v9NL0iedLpMQ Eok1OrPUCX885r697awj8wBnHVYsDA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812r; t=1544761073; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=GCXMiEf7NIUyNpymgFJCM167gbKWRImJqTAnqAkVhhE=; b=PiAmAqdNyIu/IzhiopbWkwVHxnMNSMfRAPXuqbTHlYyxin9/LsL5y/Lb WojtpOjR12VV4i4XGxXvmd6lOgOKRKySoI+Un6mg1l70MM0P5Z26+JXE3q CA/lg/+HrjpU0/Q0VtCeviWHhJrY65lTs1hb7cmVgYa1P+wjhumtmKgoCI 0mLajnEr1q1Rvnq0LO3eTW8zZs1B4NJVqytcV79xZMLpO6WbTMz8ijWCuL +FnHU5hnZ3E+azNEiUN2UAQ2Lh5pa0EtU0re4gD7jSpY5FTvePt3IayCjP xOCQtNi7vL5eOAM9tSvqRb7vGUg6S9hEtDXHbVFlrUGiIRbUrAU4eQ==
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by softlayer.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0104A2D409A1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:17:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:17:52 -0500
Message-ID: <5481301.0rrDFdmT3s@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-163-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20181214015453.A1E38200B6F99D@ary.qy>
References: <20181214015453.A1E38200B6F99D@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/86QBfYjml3dZBTgr3kiNbKsHXIc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 04:17:58 -0000

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 08:54:53 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article <2046741.GJeexbxHFF@kitterma-e6430> you write:
> >In previous examples, this has been analogized  to the Verisign sitefinder
> >debacle.  Personally, I think it's worse.  Without an external check, this
> >is a tool for enhancing the surveillance capacity of authoritarian
> >regimes.
> This is starting to sound like the drunk looking for his keys by the
> streetlight.
> 
> I grant the hypothetical point you're making, but if I were a cruel
> government, funky DMARC records would not be near the top of my list
> of intrusive techniques.

Possible, but I come back to as bad as it is, let's not make it worse.

I don't think that domains should have to opt-out (by publishing a DMARC 
record) of having their data sent to the registrar of their TLD/PSD.  If it's 
open season for PSD, then that's the situation we've created.

Scott K