Re: [dmarc-ietf] Display address, was Mandatory Sender Authentication

"Stan Kalisch" <stan@glyphein.mailforce.net> Tue, 11 June 2019 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stan@glyphein.mailforce.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 EE9C51200B5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailforce.net header.b=il4WvgzW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ATrUUFNc
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 53Duijxg0WiY for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01EC4120059 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 13:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC5B47B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap6 ([10.202.2.56]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:08:16 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailforce.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=UyE2eaBqjs5xE+Wsb/ofjJBHCi1Jukr JpjxMpj9fqbU=; b=il4WvgzWziXPlSsBsSlv6GmzsMN35Nx6sLEVf6vMcexfkiX f81pHHxCSesy7vemIpwn0wBK86ozwP3cznQEBEJrepm38vfbNZFljV1uET4YNW8h jbnlr8p7qaT5yUN0/6c7TVTF6yWdLtkuMmHnQmuMIEnMSs2s5ow+9rfVwD9Pw67K BeCBvPHGYyltKlgn9YI+IVwLijzgj2INSKiDfOUtY0qc121UtqLJNxjcoxYtwzVJ SOPWg8AUqDiy6hMJNUbjLiixt4zrFQuBdgJokIa7O6fZvmUM+INkSG7mJ4NEnwmJ uNbadV6ulSJqNmOyMgRpBU9mmJBjcE1Et4pZZYQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=UyE2ea Bqjs5xE+Wsb/ofjJBHCi1JukrJpjxMpj9fqbU=; b=ATrUUFNcD/0NiZkFSFLQMt k84XbxpjACXJ8jX32FGFPTrEWcSUyjDQRMuJWFSuOSPualTdZuJrKyD/7vctlLSn NTRoQlqiBeAYU2JcZXnpNXam/LfbLtQJAHJUPs+JkRscmbHtfb+FLcYjZqahXOlj QLarLclReHBKOZq9ZQEpNV8vlWcVkFowhldBAmk8cPIpliwCI68KFYMrT/ei2BGI H4qHLovZ5/5BHHHGjMZUUChpEoHa1XX2JROEht9lAmYS9JFOcI5hIdkfQ0P0639m 5DItlrgI9Vb8MSaxA50Lx1okA7tn0Z350WrQO5UHm3IdKA8PFovcr79Eb1gKgdIw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LwoAXTTRHU-PGvGdecNgw5MNPqMevL6IVI1aoXO5TObRqGJ1McQCAA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrudehhedguddvlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrg dtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfuthgrnhcumfgrlhhishgthhdfuceoshhtrghnsehg lhihphhhvghinhdrmhgrihhlfhhorhgtvgdrnhgvtheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehsthgrnhesghhlhihphhgvihhnrdhmrghilhhfohhrtggvrdhnvghtnecuvehl uhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LwoAXSnZtkbf79Hu6AjIEz1iGvOKNoeGWexsWzWROv80cef2U1rkUQ> <xmx:LwoAXTSCAtCzlVObuqe6cXxbwehf-9wbtTWoxfK4tUMGPRdtiE5vJw> <xmx:LwoAXQN2kkDkB2Q9AwZ2TTelkUM9qA9Tl-hVxfPzmXssNa0LlQFSHw> <xmx:LwoAXW-WwU-YOr9EZkbR18lVWIcZqeXbZVA8SO2GqnHa5EGvs8XPcg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 636291400A0; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-663-gf46ad30-fmstable-20190607v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <59cb3de1-b9a6-4fff-a9e5-9e9bf9f832b0@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98411dd3-b22e-9893-94a7-0f3d3eafa5d7@dcrocker.net>
References: <20190603142956.66B31120252@ietfa.amsl.com> <45cdc0da-5243-3a62-b217-8d5e4ea9ea11@dcrocker.net> <941abdbf28684283b972f69f25876220@bayviewphysicians.com> <5524dbb3-27ff-4aa8-aaf0-fc3a3fc23418@dcrocker.net> <1df2cc6b-c169-59ca-08f6-dadc06a702c6@tana.it> <1e096404-6b00-8896-0b79-841c243cacec@dcrocker.net> <7f8692bb-6b80-455e-f030-731f3ae36b58@tana.it> <98411dd3-b22e-9893-94a7-0f3d3eafa5d7@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:08:14 -0400
From: Stan Kalisch <stan@glyphein.mailforce.net>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="08c95eac449240b6a34761d306a8df4b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/F3K44mkOPA_68Q6oYtCdb5czquU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Display address, was Mandatory Sender Authentication
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, 11 Jun 2019 20:08:19 -0000

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > A user can then arrange her address book so as to make it clear to the MUA that
> > a class of email addresses are equivalent to one another, in order to avoid
> > meaningless alerts.
> 
> What makes you think users want to do this extra work or that they will.

Yes. Users have to be 1) made aware of an argument in favor of the extra work in the first place and, and, 2), after that, convinced of that argument in favor of the importance of that extra work. Like it or not, they're not.

I mean, I'm just imagining a stay-at-home parent with three kids who only knows their phone is beeping at them while they're trying to get said kids into the car to go to urgent care because one is throwing up. The beeping is just going to make them mad and you're not even going to make it past step 1.

> Evidence to date is that they don't and won't.

Indeed.


Stan