Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 A906E12011E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 aAI3eCKNpWSc for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x133.google.com (mail-it1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7922C120125 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x133.google.com with SMTP id q14so1960733itk.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 16:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W2h34AVYzJ8WKZZGXNZuIVBAuf2C3ozaZsCVkmWCfzY=; b=eTYrpGGGqg0+DqOA6Oxx+tqV293ieMgrmgi/X5C9XJ/3oW7eGErSepQImAQOOxdGG4 i1Bz9WzEq3VOGTiGd9np4pjTuMbH+KDinRHL/96ZuNDELHFaOt5QPKxbfRxhS9DJ4wXm Bo2yO5jur9yTOFToa2qs3DEteyonPIoIPalfU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W2h34AVYzJ8WKZZGXNZuIVBAuf2C3ozaZsCVkmWCfzY=; b=BtygJSC2gGyHtoHHDdlZTdKLR6vrQfYgqB3UMjOg2tle4MXGC43EyuY0gH8rPVmglb OwhXWW/KKdgZLM417XINFdIJ1Qdfo5HdjAXAnZE3eQmwObrA4sI1x+DopigEa0gYPesu KZmSPZW4JByKsqY75x3zTzSMZA0exBz9gz20K2lmvC/bNF50IBYhOVQoKaU8URwQhppd ELQcmCZQpLM3Li4Gx01LDHwhulXSl4sRdYJd8r1TmDX5Z8ubQvLjzjOFcSqg/94lWh5Y Sv0dKprKJQipRRZnBRKKaAr64QqpwrcQ19NI6qyZxTadcjf3F9kl43RMgtKEEwWqIhGe EOkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXr1nxk1mllMkC0ObnsL2yTJUB1L9zxk60J9cIWsoZaEhJyaniD c5T0pgpIEG0xgWrWGucN+64EP9PJkIrsEBU+IlaNzmimtdc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyoKs7QaXlJRXE8/eRPcMPTpjhvcu5u81/MN7IG+XaxVgOeT/+HQI4csCf1YP1+5MfrhwAv62iwiIm5deVL+z4=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:8243:: with SMTP id q3mr24387898jag.37.1554764936635; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 16:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com>
In-Reply-To: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:08:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qdU4TbL3okQnNMn6yr+xODFfBG6o9ZOwJ1SgdjGJ95nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c2026505860ceb19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/LqatYSd4mkwdewMOHGcm-ndpZEk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs
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, 08 Apr 2019 23:09:04 -0000

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:55 PM Douglas E. Foster <
fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> wrote:

> I don't know how to express my shock at today's conversations.   One of
> the shocks comes from this:
>
> We have consensus that the better email filters do not need the DMARC for
> PSDs standard, because they are already blocking non-existent domains.
>

This neglects the benefit to the domain operators of receiving the reports
about abuse of their domain space. For the end recipient of the bogus
traffic, there is no difference.


> The inferior email filters are not expected to implement this feature,
> because they are inferior products.
>

Somewhat tautological, but most likely true.


> Therefore the new standard has no expected benefit, but we need to finish
> it anyway.
>

Incorrect - see my first point.

--Kurt

>