Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 21 March 2019 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 7F0F8130FF3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=FwboxfaJ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Z1NzlOeM
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 u_NNHHl05b-m for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 B97A512782C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19499 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2019 14:32:34 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4c29.5c93a082.k1903; bh=6IspOD9IzWfRxHNBpqYC2upQrEmTs4Z42Zxtw9V3gJs=; b=FwboxfaJ9YK2ZxoIJuR0H5yyikc8ibpbhj3PC58wYojlcy36f8ZLQn2LUb5kxJ6Tt7r7SFM98g5bbvJEZMJfdq34sFEJKcnPgIZ+ps5bOxHCscH4l4NiZFIzkDkomNtU8+KNVijohqA1kAgLGuVpadfnYzg16iFuimPGisZyPwNu89mgBYQfoqjFJxgDzJUUpuetU6sCaRcYAB2OxBRMiPg7LMrOXdIWlnR3aH6dXI6TE3JRuaY+XI+CSD+UnhMU
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4c29.5c93a082.k1903; bh=6IspOD9IzWfRxHNBpqYC2upQrEmTs4Z42Zxtw9V3gJs=; b=Z1NzlOeMCorIrUW0YkTnPK33b0PLssaNskmaEAKZxlAMoXWZQl7TAtkiwlhEzQprwwbKK9sdi/7vfMjJ47e7y8d4pfSBbEfxjL/wRsTEO4z05jd0H7OTDgZDinnNTvJUY17SWLG5Y/+CAyLnsHhX44hPJrUKww1f/wc4JhsutW7xnda2vZJAgd2m4UVsoZANvqmsnNA1KOduU+EZaQaRPOQzTSB28l9e/H/LxMIqbaFVT2DNqFKLPPJoAzw6YYSz
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 21 Mar 2019 14:32:34 -0000
Date: 21 Mar 2019 10:32:34 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1903211031070.83149@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Dotzero" <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: "IETF DMARC WG" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYcyaEBHYGPDY4ah_O+Obk-tijnL9SnxvzKyywu4BEmkrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190319184209.804E42010381DB@ary.qy> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903201442260.7108@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1903201042010.79863@ary.qy> <CAJ4XoYcyaEBHYGPDY4ah_O+Obk-tijnL9SnxvzKyywu4BEmkrw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MnwLYL230pORo0CRCt5wv1cmDOE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:32:37 -0000

>> DMARC has never been an anti-spam scheme.  It's about phishing, which is
>> not the same thing.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with you John. DMARC is about preventing
> direct domain abuse. It does not specifically address phishing as the bad
> guys can simply use cousin domains, homoglyphs, etc.

Well, it's abount a subset of phishing.  It's surely more about phishing 
than about spam.

R's,
John

PS: on the other hand, if your point is that DMARC impases significant 
costs for small and dubious benefits, I wouldn't disagree.