Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 04 December 2019 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 843F512012C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:39:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 k7cPwIUqDE5Y for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 15C0912001E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:39:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1575455983; bh=uHZPceGSndmKkzUjhAw/frVvl56K2vT+qU32+TZnPC8=; l=1841; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bskw2UuR5ViPh7c1z4bE8iDYpIOzoqapX0vBZG8P1ymn1JweYts8vhI/qEgqJyCss rez9380ux2pUPwbQXuii1u4LBVLm++YexPtVbBcJK1T5QCX7VXvKyH4m8qmq2S+ypG 0VLPPqRARRhrZCIAHde33HcLuycEE3Y5BgWI98/r238j6vJuSJNZoSy9yvnKk
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC073.000000005DE78CEF.0000111D; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 11:39:43 +0100
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwacbAT04tckpPcRcnOt=1QByOBeJ7uDf6rNK6NRwtxZYg@mail.gmail.com> <ffa2bf72-3024-237b-86ae-9cc04babeec6@gmail.com> <74a0ea49-7a46-4eb6-c297-cd703f63bd1b@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbp2hNrgF_xxhKRRODQ6HP=U5_K-r3Wtm1wJZOZcKup3g@mail.gmail.com> <9DE9E7DC-FE60-4952-8595-B2D087A6B780@kitterman.com> <CADyWQ+GSP0K=Ci22ouE6AvdqCDGgUAg3jZHBOg3EwCmw=QG84A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1obn55Y2=CuEYRYCEO3TYYNhYTsdkesQ67O61jRyfO=wA@mail.gmail.com> <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net> <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <df19dd96-b346-795e-2ffa-92aeffe8105d@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:39:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KKQBLIJVWuGuYnfXpWhBRWyqDow>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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, 04 Dec 2019 10:39:46 -0000

On Wed 04/Dec/2019 08:42:09 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net
> <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>> wrote:
> 
>>> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is
>>>   an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the
>>>   revision of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form
>>>   of anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the
>>>   experiment's participants;
>> 
>>  Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience
>>  and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly
>>  naive view.
> 
> I don't think it's based entirely on naivety.  I think there's a healthy dose
> of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed couldn't possibly
> scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all servers on the Internet", so
> in that sense from where I sit there's a built in safeguard against this
> becoming a permanent wart.


After installing the DKIM/DMARC filter that implements PSD, I can say that the
impact is unnoticeable.  I didn't carry out precise measurements, I just didn't
notice any delay.  Perhaps because I don't get so much mail from gov.uk, but I
don't think I could reliably measure a positive delay even if I were a strict
correspondent of Boris.


> Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise.

Kurt also talked about reporting some findings.  I'm embarrassed, I have no
idea what I, as a receiver, should report.  What data should I, and other
receivers collect?

IMHO, the experiment should be conceived as having it run by as many receivers
as possible, so as to have a noticeable effect on senders.  They can collect
aggregate reports and make a comparison.


Best
Ale
--