Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 18:27 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 82FF2130E12 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:27:13 -0800 (PST)
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=rwq9EX3u; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nGfX36bj
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 bUs-adJ48fVP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:27:11 -0800 (PST)
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 952DC130E14 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 80398 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2018 18:27:08 -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=13a0c.5c12a47c.k1812; bh=VNz5eNBAkLLge739n5jXZ7IxMityx+7dBg7hs+ala5c=; b=rwq9EX3uPx/BbVKu5wQ0+UDtXSXJlYC7wvyThRR1wAJ5sDn3G9sTEnqJaLQEQXupw0+Ly58Nmr2AZTQtpjO3w8ky6Cit5x8JFQQ0VNhBtcsveKMvCXD61TnVdd9mE5oyhuPgCsh469X4+T9b0ouZgPTk9iO6qtSCR/yyYpWqoVZGtH1hYCvXrxOi2mnccA1uu2hLTI31S9DgUuyhW8jPzevkFzmMgaKODDzb8YTXmlUSSKe9kBc7royb7BxPUSGf
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=13a0c.5c12a47c.k1812; bh=VNz5eNBAkLLge739n5jXZ7IxMityx+7dBg7hs+ala5c=; b=nGfX36bj+jtXXAZk8u3E0VDaufLWtRjQq6ft2LJ5z9nX8S6w8Nk/L0hAft5W51IgmE1JSXeUpuKAImhQ4n44vW/HuD0nVzqIvswtcbRV2pBzsjMLj65xx9fmRhwyK+jdV9Z2n/JYo5QfyNztgpG/FTTsKy28mANSCipj8Joh8Dba3m3YA249TyKJ8dheQ+L60P6QPh9Huy9LJAlQGRKx3zBDdd8Pf7A7nfhLIAW4uBEjUJolShDPQhgXXLyQcjGq
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; 13 Dec 2018 18:27:08 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5AD73200B6C4F5; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:27:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: 13 Dec 2018 13:27:08 -0500
Message-Id: <20181213182708.5AD73200B6C4F5@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <2657505.cCtalkmY2s@kitterma-e6430>
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/NhF7SzfkTIXpLq8p-Ekh43tDN-0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification
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, 13 Dec 2018 18:27:14 -0000

>I think it would be interesting to get more details from John Levine on his 
>experience with this as he has (in a later message in the thread) mentioned 
>he's getting this kind of data now for odd architectural reasons.

I'm the legacy registry for seneca.ny.us, a rural county just north of
here.  One of my registrants is the county government, at
co.seneca.ny.us.  I have an MX on seneca.ny.us so people can write to
me at hostmaster@seneca.ny.us if someone in the county wants to
registers a name.  They have lots of people at
<whoever>@co.seneca.ny.us.ny.us.  I have my usual dmarc record at
_dmarc.seneca.ny.us, and I've noticed that since they don't publish a
dmarc record (or much of anything else, since their mail is outsourced
to O365 and they're not very sophisticated), I get all of their dmarc
reports.

In this case it's not a big deal, they know who I am, I know who they
are, local governments aren't supposed to keep secrets, and the
reports don't show anything surprising, but one can imagine situations
where it could be an issue.  I suppose in principle it might be a
problem if some of their mail showed up in failure reports, although
since my policy is p=none and as far as I can tell nobody there sends
mail to mailing lists, there aren't many of those.

R's,
John