IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Sun, 26 July 2020 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==4767764ba5e==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.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 ADCCB3A14CA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=bayviewphysicians.com
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 V3twjddfy5cG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0A263A14CB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1595800162-11fa3118c71d4e0001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (webmail.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id ALlwA7HFvPpuPRdN (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=from:message-id:subject:to; bh=gAEW372ULPjJWMgCgJjbSMOtVaEJH4+f7N9yQ0+koTA=; b=EahBDqc3M2v/nKViTuypJSB7amfauAYJ/48I0Tyh/flReY/vEAMzRxqhwK6SLEaZq oaoQT23l4nQLqu8dK538HtpocmFGbe3Ib4JXqBC+uYADt8eU3OssYwcuLYh/6VnLU OMgZ1LVKGlu13bBVXUHoH8rb5fCFwXD4D+Q9W4G3w=
Received: by webmail.bayviewphysicians.com via HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:49:15 -0400
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, hsantos@isdg.net
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:49:13 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Response to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations
Message-ID: <13d9cde2937a493f8fe4bf7d8640f7c9@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/multipart; boundary="80187af9ed924cd8bad65cb4ebb93343"
Importance: normal
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
X-Exim-Id: 13d9cde2937a493f8fe4bf7d8640f7c9
X-Barracuda-Connect: webmail.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1595800162
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 2643
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.81
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.81 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.83483 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.81 HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY BODY: HTML has unbalanced "body" tags
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/L6y2Tk3KSuC2__m5387rYtLTjek>
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: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:49:29 -0000

The link provided by Laura Atkins on 7/21 is relevant and worth 
reading.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone<div>
</div><div>
</div><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message 
--------</div><div>From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> </div><div>Date: 
7/26/20  2:35 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: hsantos@isdg.net 
</div><div>Cc: dmarc@ietf.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Response 
to a claim in draft-crocker-dmarc-author-00 security considerations 
</div><div>
</div>On 7/26/2020 11:29 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> Dave, for a number of years of practice, depending in the system or 
> service, users have been provided with trust-related decisions . Do 
> you need real examples? 


There is a difference between providing a signal, versus its getting 
received and use.

Please provide objective data that these signals are being perceived and 
used effectively by end users.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email