Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 0E4CF120123 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NQuKb3zDY1TP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (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 B19CF120121 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id p10so18368946wrq.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:59:32 -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=hOhksE/rnoJ8WzZONdFNHJdkQBxInOGGAlR7u6/amqo=; b=pFTYvC8fJni4l9TU65P9YoMLi8FKwO5i1O27uECmNykLAYYhFhLSW+KoQOAs6yIvPx 57aP9yrzNG3hJaRCUxkE4qeiB1V4YmcfiSwzHOG/tC1XDGGGTecarF6k0NLR5mMxW1yl 3muwHqhR0PGOP9WeU30SygLsq0pgw/owOkLfbK/EY7u2Y3naIv/FbWPNNmvLTOL7QpnO BM+DuJ7SoqqsAcb07eveqdFPKpWnqstp2j+Xq+NhRkMsZFGzqIQ3bkM7pd0PtRb4ElXG ni/Z+xmOxV8yJVd5P7x0acFJvAUl7/n4tupGmbIqCi0SNwdbvuI8NTP1ZyHxBkpB0JKN 4Yfw==
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=hOhksE/rnoJ8WzZONdFNHJdkQBxInOGGAlR7u6/amqo=; b=CJFx221VZv2oj7tf+JLE4DIG0D8VHd537pJvWn/CvUOKmSYv2tL3Knbi3dagnHLn2T tZcVnSN+npt1gn2osUgl2GBaY4Pe8trW+6AhJYZj+SGx1XnjGJnaQAOUoJJ2m0pBrG7k ckMunCdQpI1++WiCZ+iRcBBG9KdImzSRoMLo4vH/PGl0DL64bLuQVJQ3NxUYFGWGfsuX N4syHYfYOBNh3asJBzLrbOxbNiBOu0lNDwqS0h/s5ndfOGKnUV92YE9Ymh9czzz9Xynm mQiTR2tRTu0OC+kheGwm3b7te492+AzQybfPb35sxPhbR9IYmKRIrAww416ko3snCWVY 39Vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUMPCEvk4Tmp4B7+7NCF89Bs7TlOFFKXrMzA2dU4RjIBn8esbgJ lozWIhcHz4BwBxuplAiK2pXaAcal2UAVuxigY9J6Ig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAurvpC6fMfe1S9YIVBs/BtNcMSMRHZAYRoD4frKBo3up7rfAXDpkOoVe+v0e7ZxCPAUupOxtFTh1bzc/kaRk=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ea0b:: with SMTP id q11mr2251929wrm.233.1554764371268; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com>
In-Reply-To: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYf4jUm7Vr_=nH38mqU_VF65-eud5g3_ChB4rjWMSE6yQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f192a05860cca4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BnrnliW6QxMbx0BKM1HuRgGqX48>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 22:59:35 -0000

What part of that do you need an explanation for? It seems pretty clear to
me. If you disagree with the statement then you should explain the
rationale for your disagreement.

Michael Hammer

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:55 PM Douglas E. Foster <
fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> wrote:

> I don't know how to express my shock at today's conversations.   One of
> the shocks comes from this:
>
> We have consensus that the better email filters do not need the DMARC for
> PSDs standard, because they are already blocking non-existent domains.
>  The inferior email filters are not expected to implement this feature,
> because they are inferior products.   Therefore the new standard has no
> expected benefit, but we need to finish it anyway.
>
> Please explain.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>