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

Dotzero <> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56560120823 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:47:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3kKf3bZ60UE9 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 758951208CF for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z3so24903746wru.3 for <>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:47:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LqsROib/3FmJaMjWZ45X6vkIwgzRBU0naUdKe8dQqbE=; b=uZsgDS4AAhZuZE/UPd0i8E/UD/yr/14KCcQBbNhRaT+7sLeW2z8xQknTRKRKXtPbcE ggToHNcTmUulM2liTQ2EQcSipnHlTVkpQXdq9FcRpRWCAZVkgxRCIm0c7+yyFfW8n6R/ sCyVGsy/xAL4z8OojrAIgeh9Zl1ChTz/pP4r9YM5qfH8OaqGIs+rBvYdwj5eablhoemL LnIZWKpavA8pNTWbcW0OzqoSBOE55iFi5slkOXbPh6tmV+2SjtdurYnnFzgtcWDv6/y8 KzSRJFriGRifDn0vjUSlYEwF+jVwpBKDYRDBxDVjAHEq8ssUIMncLs7zPuVCWQMzXclI OP3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LqsROib/3FmJaMjWZ45X6vkIwgzRBU0naUdKe8dQqbE=; b=HJ9QCuNJKfoN8tJEDs4L8qcHM+mm/q78qV+F28mF+JIfyOHp14QpoApGq7OFNg3058 ANzbzqwx58J/d5XZ33UJ6Jv+NwsCde72LdAK9W/PUOkYqBjY1aza5quPJBsVYt0LFZHX jxSEkfaoZK0e2Akthmu4ikdyhNrBXV+IBeSSkc8cDx7HgH3pf/5exR+bnP2G07fY0ymv 1KBk0HO7xhrvoQhd6I5eSI8wV6xv0WuIlt67lQ/c/4v+kgqt8NnYW6p13JRtSlD6AChe 3lT46JEMVvaYsRL+eCGvrYj6p1QNp/AiKvugZIlDllzt54qg77ziuMIY9YmLEKk0wSjG FVUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWelE9oRPXUTRGWID0/2FQhJZZazZ9q3+ciHAzuG/u3hOwnFl9m qJe7fyCM2nC06BOqIKc+JhyPDeGEaQuzx+KsZpoRXmsr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxzfJ/tIOEFela76fD+2BLEKPeGOWtgDqepIqcx2DqCKRggQRm6SxOVLgrB7CwCvftkT6/E/jYggL02giJ1f4I=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc4b:: with SMTP id e11mr25129742wrs.326.1580849224063; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:47:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <1975032.yYTNxk3MA7@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <1975032.yYTNxk3MA7@l5580>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:46:41 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000719ee6059dc62454"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:47:13 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Scott Kitterman <> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor
> example
> > to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending
> email
> > to the folks at Microsoft using email addresses by using
> > "Sender" to game PRA to get a neutral". Furthermore, it dragooned senders
> > who had no intention of participating in the experiment by reusing their
> > published SPF records in a manner they did not intend them to be used. I
> > also point out how long it took to put a stake in the heart of Sender-ID.
> > And yet even today we can find Sender-ID records littering the Internet
> and
> > even a few places doing Sender-ID checks. For some definition of "We", we
> > are good at additions and modifications but poor at deletes.
> That was me.  I agree it was a horrible idea.  The point wasn't that
> Sender ID
> was great, it wasn't.  The point was that the AIB considered it reasonable
> as
> an experiment.  I think this is far less risky than that was.  I was
> trying to
> respond to the idea what the IETF doesn't support experiments where there
> are
> technical concerns about the nature of the technology.  The AIB's
> position, as
> I read it, was that such experiments are fine and if the IESG has
> concerns,
> they should add a note to document.
> Scott K

At the risk of offending some, politics was the elephant in the room on
Sender-ID and SPF both ending up being designated as experimental.

Michael Hammer