IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?

"Luis E. Muñoz" <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click> Mon, 17 August 2020 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click>
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 397A13A0FCF; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.983 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, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.498, RCVD_IN_IADB_DK=-0.095, RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS=-0.235, RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF=-0.059, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lem.click
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 J72R0FFXp4N0; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from libertad.link (ns1.libertad.link [192.241.161.190]) (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 B183D3A0FAD; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: FWTK at libertad.link
Authentication-Results: libertad.link; spf=softfail (domain owner discourages use of this host) smtp.mailfrom=lem.click (client-ip=151.181.63.196; helo=[151.181.63.196]; envelope-from=dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Received: from [172.20.3.65] ([151.181.63.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by libertad.link (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-14~deb10u1) with ESMTPSA id 07HK06iL016131 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:00:08 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lem.click; s=s1; t=1597694409; bh=kzJtArUxkIJpF5NCiOWqKLa9RKWPiotiDWazYESKJG8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=B5c+7LLa0v/cugJ8RLRnosWo26PZGJEKgopeL+RIFk/uYb8pwfL7IbLUbhSO+RMEm KmMpLmPkSd6GWhQbViQKSy071ZGWj/+sWdEgPZz0Wn+WUl1alhwwR4ras1IOQbceM/ gYfHrgsEA+jj1OfuPtC1KPA56YtNsBjXmui79Ls0=
From: "Luis E. Muñoz" <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click>
To: Neil Anuskiewicz <neil=40marmot-tech.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com>, Doug Foster <fosterd=40bayviewphysicians.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:00:06 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <543E391F-800B-4DAD-9310-B6D121AD0FEA@lem.click>
In-Reply-To: <CAOPP4WEGGDgvAc1N6_R-k0NE=EueXeWY73UoEu+B0pj4GLxV0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200811034740.BA1831E7FDBF@ary.local> <0c8afc68-bc51-702a-c794-610b2d355836@dcrocker.net> <83a8e95f-d85d-634e-0c93-eb2ddab2c69d@wordtothewise.com> <99810a58-3809-bfd2-3571-bac54430f9e8@tana.it> <CAOPP4WHWoVkA+ZWZ+2AFnH8_nKBxO+t3Z4trz347JV0fsEy83Q@mail.gmail.com> <003501d671b9$467c0670$d3741350$@bayviewphysicians.com> <CAOPP4WG0Az02DJ0TvWfnaWSfCjnqW3tLh3TTGOJu4BC4zNuQBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYeQxgu5Yj+Aag9kYY3HXMrXV8DPNczXP5L_BLoVaAv0Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qFWJNOjV9Fd=tB8Nzod5rw7GgY0OeS3cHgfMDGoZGYWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPP4WGY9+dE7A5XE-zQZHsdHsFNd+5woKUqJE6j3CmsWKdRRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYcYQUQZwh=FLKTj-_Y=whG4_7WzSsGaSPXYpn3aACfSZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPP4WEGGDgvAc1N6_R-k0NE=EueXeWY73UoEu+B0pj4GLxV0A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/JrttlbKJsC9n_7Tct0Cq5SoHMLw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 ?
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, 17 Aug 2020 20:00:17 -0000

On 14 Aug 2020, at 12:47, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>  Under 50% of companies have any DMARC record. Of those who deploy 
> DMARC,
> about ~2% have p=quarantine and ~5% p=reject, though some industries 
> such
> as finance it looks like it's closer to 15% p=reject. I'm sure these
> numbers aren't perfect but what you have likely isn't radically 
> different.

My numbers are inverted regarding quarantine vs reject, as I posted on 
this list:

On 30 Jul 2020, at 18:01, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
>
> I am currently observing ~215.5 million domain names. Out of those, 
> ~64  million have a seemingly _valid_ SPF record and ~113 million with 
> at least one MX record.
>
> This is a current breakdown of the (valid) DMARC records I am 
> observing over the general domain population above. This amounts to an 
> adoption rate of ~1.7%.
>
> |    p       |  count  |
> | :--------- | ------: |
> | none       | 2715614 |
> | quarantine |  238584 |
> | reject     |  726045 |

Numbers have moved a bit since then, but not much. I'm seeing 3:1 reject 
to quarantine ratio across the board.

> Why is adoption low? Is that a big problem? Why so few aggressive 
> policies?
> Is that a big problem?

DMARC can be quite useful even with p=none. This use case provides 
insight on what's going on and sometimes, that's all that is wanted. 
Moving to more aggressive policies require a degree of control on the 
mail flows that not all organizations are prepared to exercise, IMO.

Best regards

-lem

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email