IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 16 September 2020 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2F9C33A0E31 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 8lVu_F9ngFbR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 BD0573A0E29 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1600241005; bh=3PLLGnNgc3LvOqqGTExRb++1pePmP+SO+saT7vmJHB8=; l=1142; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DIdHQjLIwP1I+l+e8EKLOI4uO1JLK1SxKsx7Q4JSXn6ywF6Ull3hde/fr8vclUYlq hAZdWUq7DVAgWOEKETi5JTK/wOwbEN/ner5Ii5Ub/3ItwLLT866ftvmak8qJjXVPD7 Qun9SMoI3ZV6Mo8PKPKlIDQLpHdd1DagLEYLmhA4IlGEazz1ALZBY4ulCzrxs
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC08B.000000005F61BD6C.00007362; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:23:24 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
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>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <9023401d-7284-3de6-86fe-39124d5c250f@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:23:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMSGcLDs8Rh5hBvtNWU34e4aTT0xnjEMGYdgC322Jfg-tsMGLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UISOALT99ZldFOUVYXbHQSSLbkM>
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 07:23:31 -0000

On Tue 15/Sep/2020 18:02:01 +0200 Joseph Brennan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:55 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> In article <CAMSGcLDKRMbJ_30jZdKE_6hkKaktwBxU6_E=EbnK2_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.


On the other hand, it was a tremendous push for DMARC adoption.


Best
Ale
--

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