Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 16:59 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 458933A146B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:59:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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.20150623.gappssmtp.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 eLBgsqCYfBpB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (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 EF3B83A12E7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id e5so7692001pjt.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=CN9IJ1xOpMU6r6rCdj2a/bMXyyMG4LUECK99f+Kzx+A=; b=ivxo+5mC40CPBYwTrga0tKAx2GSCwbLlUali8H2E6uzP0uQXrD3qHZpNKroP5qb3oD dgkGpR9u2UbZnJsbguXtQRkrKF4fVr7PQlwTl36v/bUpcovKrbtVM7YUFOcsRh4P+Xth ohmtE0JLjF1w4hL2Mnl+x390kTMpG2IE1Zt0POGnUFHqs/KoZrYLXqsDlgQSrtg6K3Hc 7oLP0hRBO6NiW08VMb3Eix8e7RA0XI0UF8fWmwz7g+niI0KLMDRpJIT5usCq0LpwQ3SR NCQnvYBE3A6UvrnlFYfkhuNRx4XMkR4rFRsINmwuxgLMojddo/RxUCIehHl0jdmmdbEk Pggw==
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=CN9IJ1xOpMU6r6rCdj2a/bMXyyMG4LUECK99f+Kzx+A=; b=o6QzVwbvtiYHDWAZSor+7//axAlQvu5v8u3y7m8BdPAauE5Zj4n+wP7jiWGMgUn20c 984qHTfPTaVaXofuaLk3ZzsECxZxOGAQEuvkbGu1P9c95WpxMEmsyD5zTE7ki7gIFOw3 dGYuLM+ILIP93edIAyM9a4vePQUhkkFMANPZ+vQguMS+Iap6ovvQE2m0/zKIiugtzkr3 /e6K0K1tjQ2p5ygABmQF9ECBqUKhHFWbCMhAhw5a0vApfJX8D67Vlvq/ASEoh1pR8Ko0 a/iLEqlcDr5dHySF6EJOkqjxtz5eDR916Xg0r5E1zYuNAZcji0tlLQ0HdopMzodvX1Bi oiog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EKb0VqixUTENpOhEqY2dCpH+TLMWbLGYHR6WaRO3C4AMmyy1w iPCpKTx9fJgfxVanqExHf5CLcfE99vWHaA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqrb416dBPi+vR6MvQKYlOlAd/lnYclA5PZiRdoV+r3Qln2O6YAT3id0v4BnURx5RHcLozMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c6:: with SMTP id v6mr16967019pjd.95.1607360388084; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-41-154.volcanocom.com. [107.182.41.154]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fs12sm11041663pjb.49.2020.12.07.08.59.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com> <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net> <d8dc2644-cbcf-d3a1-c5fb-46fdf5bec819@taugh.com> <CAH48ZfxWWxSh3j3YnA4eD4Y5Ep4GfVDr22WX1MCM4-tcVK0UpQ@mail.gmail.com> <b5774a04-fbee-8d23-d760-0380d58a9fb7@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwZ+KFrPzScr6c-tMOd2nCV=v1Mf71h0fWBUV9_ZZ-k6Cw@mail.gmail.com> <be9ddc32-8709-0990-c663-5c625efd6b1f@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwYNzkt7afY4ssRKtgpfBSQXxcyuNTQ++7QkUaO0GA9=Kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <83dc465e-b857-b22b-b2f2-2d7ba4d74955@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 08:59:45 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYNzkt7afY4ssRKtgpfBSQXxcyuNTQ++7QkUaO0GA9=Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------03783D54847D2CFDE52FD844"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QwxVxa1CiWZTB68JB2_Mz4rvmxA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
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, 07 Dec 2020 16:59:50 -0000

On 12/6/20 9:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>     An idea that i've been rolling around in my head is that the MLM
>     could give a sed-like script to rollback the changes. since they
>     know their modifications, they can obviously express how to
>     unmodify them. it may have less issue with the mime hackery you
>     were thinking about.
>
>
> You'd need a way to assert, and then evaluate, that something 
> equivalent to "s/.*/spam/g" is a transformation you're not willing to 
> reverse and say "yep, we're good."  I don't know how you'd go about 
> automating that.
>
>     But as far as your point about spam vectors it is surely just as
>     true about ARC, right? at least with recovering the original text
>     i have the ability to remove all of the transforms and deliver the
>     original text.  ARC not so much. it's all or nothing on the trust
>     front.
>
>     But I really think the key thing about all of this is figuring out
>     what defines success. That is the most important thing by far.
>
> I think ARC, like PSD, is meant to run for a while and see what we've 
> learned from it.  Maybe it's the silver bullet, or maybe it's 
> ineffective complexity.  That should be part of the experiment's 
> definition; Section 11 of the ARC RFC does try to capture all of that.
>
Btw, what is PSD?

Mike