Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Tue, 28 July 2020 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 37EC93A0E1D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=Ef7/OUsJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=GmD6hSDK
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 Sgp9H4CDdjPw for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (pop3.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (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 08D373A0E3E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1256; t=1595952310; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=YWGZXRpGR4xKkxYD1IcK/EzwPHo=; b=Ef7/OUsJtJlbpSk9GAhzM474fy+0Z7qLFZOWABpo/nO44NdBr/joXPGZojYNW4 UwNTtnb0585XE3gC9Tl2jg1e+Dd6MX0B5xu9I6A5HowosqAiErMzmOCANO6pFZGW 05GMFkJEWKfOjwoMy0MR8pFAeTU8kk0HC/EupwHJMVUkQ=
Received: by mail.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:05:10 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by mail.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 2384602733.1.5916; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:05:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1256; t=1595952198; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=IN+EGRK Bq8h94WnlCqIiVUv+1yefyHYbUe2trXwVRmQ=; b=GmD6hSDKaPmK9+rZGIRaN5w cIDFqeWsHuGh5FCgJi0iY/qU7myqinkghJG+/Bt/OBILr/ou9t4LVitIq37aWhBQ WmE9HEmH9zD0JPEqj52DuM2piJpkNnbuqcKlPbfJNnQt5S3V2+5roA5mRq2oyzQL e2GGr+OtxitIRZs8V7Ls=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.10) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:03:18 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.10) with ESMTP id 2095372328.1.58736; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5F204CB3.7080404@isdg.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:05:07 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <BY5PR13MB29998094418C8A6C25902569D7730@BY5PR13MB2999.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <c0361cb2-b25b-5d75-cb1f-f9c87e3ecccc@tana.it> <AE9A3A9F-27FC-4935-B8E6-AB0CE1A6D5E2@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE9A3A9F-27FC-4935-B8E6-AB0CE1A6D5E2@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/F-udB3jOpxKNq6EVpq1BT4O655U>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
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, 28 Jul 2020 16:05:20 -0000

On 7/28/2020 5:07 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
> The indirect mail stream issue is real. But it is not the only barrier
> to getting to p=reject. The sooner folks start listening to the people
> who are presenting real issues where DMARC alignment can’t be achieved
> the sooner they’ll be able to address them. The problem with low DMARC
> adoption is that it does not adequately address how companies are
> using mail in ways that break the DMARC model. Almost a decade on, and
> proponents are still suggesting that email usage should change to
> comply with their model of how email works. This has not happened.
> Maybe proponents need to think harder about why.

Well said.

It has always been how do we scale a "Lightweight Author::Signer 
Authorization Protocol" or LASAP methodology.  Examples of LASAP are:

ATPS
TPA
Conditional Signatures

SPF offers 3rd party (associated, authorized) IP addresses and does 
not have this problem (administration aside).  The DKIM Policy Model 
since ADSP lacked the ability to authorize 3rd party domains. DMARC 
did not address the problem and reason ADSP was abandoned. Hence the 
on-going dilemma.


-- 
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos