IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue submission - Mailing list security and potential solutions using DMARC

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 16 September 2020 14:46 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 E1EBE3A0114 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.682
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.682 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_DOTEDU=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Y09ikrEu5JEg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (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 754B03A00C9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id y11so6261815qtn.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:46:21 -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=cRD2Vwsz+zxNo3+c18QmS/iMjBgAzr7+8F2QXJlXK2k=; b=Q1sKVn3iBDcGwMKFHe/Wmg5cqggq0iNu2pP4+kF5DVoJWDioamUXPNjH1c96keEbLr T5RXOdLoXD4C7JgFVenGzigoX8w8kP7HVwVF5wnwmxOr8+ns/+i39ewMBhSF6d5ji16f riwqxAPq8dWJsjY47kfN508LNqNNU13SaGikQH4W0Q3cKhyLzAfQXhCVsxjhTraTggb8 eCO/O6Ur3uI3tb3Ry72WgUXwRUFHPIo5RU156AS2j4GVujxHs0/IYU9ndNdQj9sSiPdU s25tCZR7DwFgzkJq14KKb6HdrNrAHAe72xR0W2lezKJX1wQTgHNVi8DqLK+wpxiUo8Ie M6YQ==
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=cRD2Vwsz+zxNo3+c18QmS/iMjBgAzr7+8F2QXJlXK2k=; b=KKkpb1pKwZkfKGKFlpzha1fMyXenv/d/pofGCapHK209YfLmzcwXcYIF7ALFp0+r7A yAABrP4rdSCM7pvVmotNeJfYdyX9FZptokWbTuIybYfEWWcwBlUSyGfnakUVzUsZGlgR Zj3rADFPkoLoWDZm7tUL3tSwwk4eF5KlLaViL198aB108M9raSVFYItWL76Ww0foACma uZO/IPOQEQS89yn+SlZoMy4U16aCM4VMU1lhw/F7TvGlQmdJTaBypWpmUzC8N9JvveLC 8+eXFQiH4ULbnwr3ucgzqzx1+UmFByrGbcMlZFD2kuh77kC9VmGt0X4+jTv/pBe96i+X 6pAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533gJ+uV/dVKIqGg3WcTbGpru2pyl9tXvbvFr/k+1VRq9uw9cryo X9xMWnFQ4lgAvoU6dTyNTsoJTdFItk10f9a47W0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7AfB24NcC/2iBjil/jM3sRHEZ4FN19C5L5yOx19623W8TThD859Sih5lSSYzmnXUaMcm4ebKz4DMvmB+tiTY=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2fe7:: with SMTP id m94mr23415154qtd.34.1600267580512; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwZEDNT+LZDMrzecSuTD794jn0CoXRA5FG=rk6QJXO5Hyg@mail.gmail.com> <20200913025842.1BBDD208C94C@ary.qy> <CAMSGcLDKRMbJ_30jZdKE_6hkKaktwBxU6_E=E=bnK2_CKMNEXw@mail.gmail.com> <rjqo4u$114c$2@gal.iecc.com> <CAMSGcLDs8Rh5hBvtNWU34e4aTT0xnjEMGYdgC322Jfg-tsMGLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMSGcLDs8Rh5hBvtNWU34e4aTT0xnjEMGYdgC322Jfg-tsMGLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:46:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYd5axJEhy9D+0ZVzd_P+tKntLHF57spAhWtrFa2j8=_jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Brennan <brennan@columbia.edu>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aea6b305af6f544a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TYGg8ekafkFbI3AR3tpJXJqR48M>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue submission - Mailing list security and potential solutions using DMARC
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: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:46:23 -0000

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 12:02 PM Joseph Brennan <brennan@columbia.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:55 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <CAMSGcLDKRMbJ_30jZdKE_6hkKaktwBxU6_E=E=
>> bnK2_CKMNEXw@mail.gmail.com>,
>> Joseph Brennan  <brennan@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> >"Domain administrators must not apply dmarc authentication to domains
>> >from which end users send mail that may be re-sent via lists or
>> >automatic forwarding."  -- done. Then dmarc will be simple and
>> >reliable, and bank statements and similar messages are protected as
>> >intended. Building in a standard workaround significantly weakens the
>> >whole concept, doesn't it?
>>
>> Unfortunately, we have ample evidence that domain operators will
>> ignore that advice.
>>
>> According to someone who was in the room when Yahoo flipped the
>> switch, the person in charge said words to the effect that I know this
>> will screw up everyone's mailing lists and I don't care.
>>
>>
> The irony is, the result being to diminish the effectiveness of dmarc for
> everybody.
>
>
> Joseph Brennan
> Lead, Email and Systems Applications
> Columbia University Information Technology
>
>
>
Can you support your assertion with data? There was zero change
post-yahoo/AOL implementation vs pre-yahoo/AOL implementation for the
organization I worked for at the time.

Michael Hammer

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status