Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C3CB01200C7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:49:35 -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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, 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=5Jc/qt+l; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=SCu4eMvD
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 S1Dimz_alSO2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:49:34 -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 493441200B2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 109 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2019 23:49:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=6b.5cabde0c.k1904; bh=ndmZmzSjV3hK6+6qTlz2AGIttaLDEaCiIWBpACPHrR4=; b=5Jc/qt+l/ssFwxN6WmuUcCG1m9v1Ww3yu/U9d4+dtmQpurK9U+pD9KMVHBuox0I04WK0ZVL59lq9hFP3/XilUtciFi7V6DQuXRolk80xf4y4ZInzW6ieU24/5LMJF8NKu4Hr4t7h6Glh5C7FOFzxLa5/1L59pfmBWntsMqF+VvSWw1QYVu8MlvTbO8HzWv+3eT1tO9s6yZr8xfLaWHZ+cwZDdEVf1O4tkebGi+Y0ul9lYsQG5gFd4QluqW/EdVSw
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=6b.5cabde0c.k1904; bh=ndmZmzSjV3hK6+6qTlz2AGIttaLDEaCiIWBpACPHrR4=; b=SCu4eMvDWmMruJQLXqvX6zHRTsG7VY88OsFtYVu+v64BWup3xqmKcj7gCqZKDp3aa8zDrBO9mM4mWBWjMbuTtgYsT2RojhdvyCD2JYjtjUr+sc5nbPEkaVDAFoC16au8LjN7GMgVnJt5nFNxl/Z99HKmeVvH6jnlrO6OAIavQS+O8gP2eBn2vGitozHjfrHppPjVEMK44IxRm+EN/+iyaitSfn1920JXrhk+zSdymYFxBiVagt2mrhAt49VQmlNK
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 08 Apr 2019 23:49:32 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2B3402011C0471; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 8 Apr 2019 19:49:30 -0400
Message-Id: <20190408234932.2B3402011C0471@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: kboth@drkurt.com
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qdU4TbL3okQnNMn6yr+xODFfBG6o9ZOwJ1SgdjGJ95nA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NHwKDUyoHNaFOMDF9cFAtW9SVh8>
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 23:49:36 -0000

In article <CABuGu1qdU4TbL3okQnNMn6yr+xODFfBG6o9ZOwJ1SgdjGJ95nA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>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.

I agree that the reports are useful, regardless of the policy.

I just wish we could figure out how to do this without reinventing the PSL.