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

Dotzero <> Sat, 26 October 2019 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197661200A3 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d1-rcXbZxoOn for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F3B120024 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 6so6223268wmf.0 for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
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=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;; 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: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 09:32:06 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Alessandro Vesely <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d6c200595d04b57"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two new fields in aggregate reports
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: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 13:32:20 -0000

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:36 PM Alessandro Vesely <> 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

Michael Hammer