Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 7552D3A195B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:01:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 jmvYXmVR1WVB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (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 A4B313A1640 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id q20so8836902pfu.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:00:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=xl6ElGHdFKqsxEIPCZAkRVrAEHSNFewlbPLexCB3f44=; b=kFH6tF3V31pEA82gfhenBT0sKdIpxgzeeQoao9MXnGpNm9ypBWsurBPy3oejYBsRAu FgpuGsqOGI444v4tQfAzECPde+i5LpkjCraa7qf0LhdoBX4I2EvH3SRteukL/9N8Yq5j NAB3kCz7L53z3mLyBWpC2/z7zrv3zPVj4DlaeWVESgIdUBKDN+zMCXqmtiuVjbIuARsQ oaUbuTpuiMrmoxw8hSVHI8eiTgkHENTxL8k7FDrzMJ6QdgaPgGi9C1jL2arhCWRn9gt+ RU/hyEGEDPqnwL2FM72alwek+LC5C9XsiwpoZPVUdCyiFj69N9JTJgEjRc3Rj97/28MG 6qew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=xl6ElGHdFKqsxEIPCZAkRVrAEHSNFewlbPLexCB3f44=; b=Xdnwmy+W2FWKyhBCsqLHmgpVU5daxXDuCJLFhyxN+aESclFiZhwynbWAh2GOfCsHNz pii4XheMtpHPmOuo++1IS5Ac6wkNtctMQsMAjJ7xTEC4UeB1HUVfF0GE8DPZqVTK71Js V7ydOfLx0Sis1hdIIDldDrVgRWyDqo4gtdS61I4DkkPcRtBuXZelgziu8MGMRL3sR2Ct Lkbh5hmtH2kuEiz3PE643/R3BwxzQ0LVirydxHtD2p71sPRwXaZgkjdgJRzXi3olEzoT 4Q8/jCRxPrSa1jzDqdlxPhN0we5+8kpQ3BLCJBOK42+ZH5r7lBFomDCyHeYnGw1ew5z7 rroQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306KuudJrpj/Hq0a4tAJEJmns2MPJ7Um4VaoeCHxhHKsZOJ1HZY W+AKe2EkZwHEGXRx74GggGnEuq9yBjgLyA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytipc6lvCgxfNR2+K/Gpb94w+vhmyTr6eDSTqIqubcImt+Oq9McKig/6fIkCYA/WKwWjg9kA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4301:: with SMTP id q1mr1703750pga.430.1611597648711; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-35-22.volcanocom.com. [107.182.35.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f36sm28369pjk.52.2021.01.25.10.00.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:00:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <34317129-8225-fb38-4ad3-e1b9ffed21fb@iecc.com> <9c84fa50-d23c-a794-fc62-09788ac383a9@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com> <df867378-5da0-b912-2a0f-b2081d1f2437@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kfCC1H89pRjgxXK=+BizJHFdKgnr7Gxh_2wWq8P7L-0Q@mail.gmail.com> <a94cb6c0-0a32-da8d-4bd5-9c7ab2866c82@mtcc.com> <CAH48ZfxkQ9g-gmBOPdDsxr4RDvXOi56EaX=aJVDbuL_g7kR+xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfOB93fpYRjwxgQNkG-ydVHLtvgUp0LLROvv-F-amJVy4w@mail.gmail.com> <b9e8da8e-f46a-49c0-4196-1d50ed94d526@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfPh4kYq0yXhtP9BaPmtP_rc7L-0f=r3Ff_P3oxrhYqvtw@mail.gmail.com> <fd74120f-bfad-ef51-64d7-2f8ec4f00fab@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwaPmMGR48EUhNkmZTozjoiTMnC6Rfmjdo9vLYD6ZhNoAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfMcQ3HCrQAgKWeK-n2Acf+COK+E3HuCauh8g44KiWj=ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <25ea488b-e432-75c4-c57a-01d03308208c@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:00:46 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMcQ3HCrQAgKWeK-n2Acf+COK+E3HuCauh8g44KiWj=ng@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4F6517150436DF6A498BFA0F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QCbFI-GRMkKGw0xXicrkAlIrKQc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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, 25 Jan 2021 18:01:37 -0000

Issue #99 would need to be resolved if you want to use https as well. 
That's really why I brought up the entire issue. It's an easy fix for 
email, and not obvious how you fix it for https.

Mike

On 1/25/21 9:41 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Realized I think we're going in circles. Just posted text that is 
> status quo that I believe already addresses Michael's concern.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy 
> <superuser@gmail.com <mailto:superuser@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:32 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com
>     <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>         Why is this controversial? Seriously. What is controversial
>         about saying that the a report should authenticate? The onus
>         is on the people who say it does not to lay out the case for
>         why it's not a problem, not me. #98 has a simple piece of text
>         to remedy this. it's 2021. You don't use unauthenticated data
>         if you can possibly help it.
>
>     I'm not taking a position at this point on the issue, but I think
>     you should expect that this will come up in external reviews.  If
>     consensus is to maintain the status quo, we might want to say so
>     explicitly (and why) rather than saying nothing, as the latter
>     might be interpreted as it having gotten no consideration at all.
>
>     -MSK
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Seth Blank*| VP, Standards and New Technologies
> *e:*seth@valimail.com <mailto:seth@valimail.com>
> *p:*415.273.8818
>
>
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential 
> and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of 
> individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and 
> authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, 
> copying or distribution of the information included in this 
> transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately 
> notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from 
> your system.
>