Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

"Luis E. Muñoz" <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click> Fri, 31 July 2020 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click>
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 1C0393A093A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.499, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RCVD_IN_IADB_DK=-0.095, RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS=-0.235, RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID=-0.001, RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF=-0.059, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lem.click
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 twoiJmCsLM05 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from libertad.link (ns1.libertad.link [192.241.161.190]) (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 A94B63A0870 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: FWTK at libertad.link
Authentication-Results: libertad.link; spf=softfail (domain owner discourages use of this host) smtp.mailfrom=lem.click (client-ip=70.181.75.239; helo=ip70-181-75-239.oc.oc.cox.net; envelope-from=dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Received: from [192.168.1.61] (ip70-181-75-239.oc.oc.cox.net [70.181.75.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by libertad.link (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-14~deb10u1) with ESMTPSA id 06V11tZZ021020 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 01:01:57 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lem.click; s=s1; t=1596157317; bh=5WjZwP9eEpmgETJzqtv5VYidinWpEarW9glP9t1qoOA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZHcua0sturnvq5C7EuxVAETPHAwy3lR9XgRm7tIxWc8zau9I7WjOTtP/Xy4glXsNF iPwnwpEtiKvnydomVwOWHLQzTqfpFPlAWJCR7k2kp16E6SL7uiXCdk54Vz5yTqo3/n K8YEkGQ4CZb6PeGTDowzzTkloeON2ireeSBwAsXI=
From: "Luis E. Muñoz" <dmarc-ietf.org@lem.click>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:01:54 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <95C85860-4C8E-4593-90B1-C9800D919E05@lem.click>
In-Reply-To: <d446c074-bbcf-a824-041c-e45958e0b0a2@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <BY5PR13MB29998094418C8A6C25902569D7730@BY5PR13MB2999.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <c0361cb2-b25b-5d75-cb1f-f9c87e3ecccc@tana.it> <AE9A3A9F-27FC-4935-B8E6-AB0CE1A6D5E2@wordtothewise.com> <d446c074-bbcf-a824-041c-e45958e0b0a2@bluepopcorn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_0C244EFD-B2A8-4BBA-B6E2-57415B9E1B7D_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Q55R1vxZQqqTbodt_52L0zG1WcY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 01:02:10 -0000

On 30 Jul 2020, at 15:52, Jim Fenton wrote:

> There's an underlying assumption here that I don't agree with: that
> DMARC adoption equates to the publication of a p=reject DMARC policy,
> and that everyone (or at least all Fortune 500 companies) should be
> doing that. p=reject should only be used when the usage patterns of 
> the
> domain support that policy. I'm more inclined to say that 85% of 
> Fortune
> 500 companies are savvy enough not to publish a policy that doesn't 
> fit
> their usage patterns.

I am currently observing ~215.5 million domain names. Out of those, ~64
  million have a seemingly _valid_ SPF record and ~113 million with at 
least one MX record.

This is a current breakdown of the (valid) DMARC records I am observing 
over the general domain population above. This amounts to an adoption 
rate of ~1.7%.

|    p       |  count  |
| :--------- | ------: |
| none       | 2715614 |
| quarantine |  238584 |
| reject     |  726045 |

It is interesting that roughly half of those are not taking advantage of 
the reporting. Here are the counts for those with neither `rua=` nor 
`ruf=` in the DMARC records:

|    p       |  count  |
| :--------- | ------: |
| none       | 1092990 |
| quarantine |  107767 |
| reject     |  307614 |

I do not have a definitive list of Fortune 500 domain names, but I 
compile a rolling list of domain names with most traffic using multiple 
sources, which currently holds ~1.8 million unique domain names.

The breakdown of DMARC records from that high-traffic population is 
shown below, and it amounts to about 6.3%.

|    p       | count |
| :--------- | ----: |
| none       | 79367 |
| quarantine | 18094 |
| reject     | 15875 |

For completeness, here is the same report, counting only those that have 
neither `rua=` nor `ruf=` in the DMARC record. The ratio of _silent_ 
`p=quarantine` and `p=reject` seems around half as in the case of the 
general population.

|    p       | count |
| :--------- | ----: |
| none       | 32561 |
| quarantine |  4534 |
| reject     |  2760 |

It would seem that those high-traffic domains are ~5x more likely to 
adopt DMARC. To me, these numbers speaks of thoughtful and deliberate 
deployment that outpaces the general domain name registrations.

That said, I cannot claim whether the list of high-traffic domains is 
actually a good proxy for the domain portfolio of the Fortune 500 
companies.

Best regards

-lem