Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two new fields in aggregate reports

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Sat, 26 October 2019 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 197661200A3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 d1-rcXbZxoOn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (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 44F3B120024 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id 6so6223268wmf.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MwdbTCwm1M/+BTMk32LKvVw42lestN0gP+P69jKnxxs=; b=iTlpgvd+E3wE1tKo1kMTQnPcenrfCt3/Bmk6dgacjMU/7tQeiFiVwtbH3hq1L14ctN fpgS4S3tTpbwSB6m90Isc6sWQpWcQDRErhYxmKx7yXzHnt5R3hfMFIY4awuCBrWDwkW9 hpPh6RA23Omse+ONunuZm8Dmu1Toq3KuFCuSLj9PV+wNtjXoH9JvppBoUKVuj/F//cK7 r/7re1WSBMT4o6gkVrQ8OzN0sw4nvpVIlqnpwCGowZFQnRg0PgdzIOSl/IbOyGv4RHcc qEWCs0lUD663NxgQDvlMwDaZvFM2vG9s2txvKvMXpwjlejMr7zYlqR+ilTW/Wx+C8cOZ KL+A==
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=MwdbTCwm1M/+BTMk32LKvVw42lestN0gP+P69jKnxxs=; b=p/etv7EjJ2aHONqPwdnY7qdqpwBC/u5zrO370+NBCDEIfxlU6xudbrFkKbBSmNMdE/ TNuTFt1WR/G4blCZitJltBjP4MnaVaI0tV+A5Z4oWFRlDvX8YDgIQWJ/lf99qz661LHo fvwbqpgUAZPM+jF2c9zzkdSoJvP9BsAZ3fQPT74abJYevwCXf/f+JXIQX6j5BnUCB7q2 sUPDAnsBf7vKJG6M7saZtTtL6+MUeV39ukINRmtfihYnv97yoWq3wBV2I+yQn50Ni7fg ESEDbfaoau9eT/1UzdwT6T5PtFsmNXWuzE6vQyLOZzFJyn7qYaMNXkWqEh+0t29rqaU/ Hxbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXQG+g2+Rpar4pi4ACmXcl3rcDAvuxd0hHmqVhl4nBr9Zh+AMEM yZpivrNFv3qLDgA0EbFSlID8C17oRYJWniRGqWE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzjk5TIOxFcvNd3oAHpyqRj0FXRGR9WeU4QUQ6Xn1jHC3ZAtbbOLqdS7QnlMEd9QYrzS2Iunv7JqPe07X78AZ4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2dd0:: with SMTP id t199mr7651246wmt.58.1572096736847; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2c9f5a36-105f-22bd-2029-cb66867355c2@tana.it> <e5bc55efd6ef01ab849505a0872c9dc9a36e738f.camel@aegee.org> <682972a4-38e4-f5b2-3180-c5a03a3a08b4@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <682972a4-38e4-f5b2-3180-c5a03a3a08b4@tana.it>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:32:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYd7GU6Ci0W=_DXkVLHXBrojk+LqseM5bP9n4wEYeHzFDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d6c200595d04b57"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/O5EhrkOg3ETXQ8cFhYI8B1tKe04>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two new fields in aggregate reports
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: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 13:32:20 -0000

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:36 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>; wrote:

>
> Well, spam score usually is hight for phishing too.  To counter phishing is
> DMARC core business.
>

Absolutely wrong. DMARC does one thing and one thing only - mitigate direct
domain abuse. Bad guys can and have switched to using cousin domains,
homoglyphs and other approaches to engage in spam, phishing and other
abuse. One thing I think we will see more of over time is system compromise
to enable sending of badness as a particular domain. This is one reason I'm
not a huge fan of reputation systems and whitelisting in particular.
Reputation in practice essentially reduces to "What have you done to me
today".

Michael Hammer