IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 1CCE33A0B4B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=tw2qa9Yb; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=ug6tRW/a
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 XW8uMih6HmMQ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 448BF3A0B51 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22185 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 17:05:15 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=56a5.5f1871cb.k2007; bh=VgfJD3JeY+cGvfsbUUNgGp/RmAjrokdxa/Ey/TwfmOc=; b=tw2qa9Ybe+ED5PMO9LZx45Cx7K3sy+f9Kdw+XdAkAsL1Xtmzh2LRX2zLc+g2WebPkbiiMO7BpM7IrwLUgJG58eca/rOmabH8yxgMsdGu4sXCZp0uHDz2wkUdrfq0UJX9D8RLt96zKzFaGgqC6NufkVby+UBqys7zUAscprWn5HQNW4VmJHqqdlsfTck//708foktkomuOkGaCupgGo8hitgDFuw4AHAhIWYZDA+GfVdFIo1IpfyEyY6Rnb3ajFDP
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=56a5.5f1871cb.k2007; bh=VgfJD3JeY+cGvfsbUUNgGp/RmAjrokdxa/Ey/TwfmOc=; b=ug6tRW/aNuzSELEIw7aGPf4jVfOvGm0EtWRhRi5859gLHLU1IwGYovQj6wA5En7Cgx5g/3CWaxWEGr2kf4KdXVnboyGWXC/BwM3Xtpmn8z0MZ+JLBd7EqFw8zlXEI9lLtIzLjJfLYmsHhhm1+vOIUgh+9Fvw67AkBhXygG1FOKu1URfI6ESJZ+NaIBGQpC3V6vP1vIs9M6TgT59ktTt0S05/utH4YbAYSWiEd4BCq/mw2qmcFHAC+CeXCmWI7T30
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 22 Jul 2020 17:05:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 911F21D61BDE; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:05:14 -0400
Message-Id: <20200722170514.911F21D61BDE@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <002201d6602d$8b87dca0$a29795e0$@bayviewphysicians.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BsPKhq4bSPGwOIsvujZ8wv1D8kE>
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 17:05:19 -0000

In article <002201d6602d$8b87dca0$a29795e0$@bayviewphysicians.com> you write:
>Since the conflict between DMARC and Mailing Lists is related to the changes that Mailing List apply
>to a received message, it may be useful to review the purposes that each of those changes serve, with
>a goal of eliminating unnecessary changes.

I don't believe we have a charter to tell mailing list operators what
to do, even if we believed, against all experience, that they would
take our advice.

As may have been pointed out a few times, mailing lists had been
serving their users perfectly well for decades before AOL and Yahoo made them
DMARC roadkill.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email