IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC threat analysis needed

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 7AD993A1252 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Xj_4tYRar12I for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (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 085173A1250 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id i24so59305uak.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:32 -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=GdD2jrv3UtSumG102GYrQO86UliXkJic5vV18l/gpaw=; b=BKKPuiGfIHegwS60ogUAVPNEREn4YpsKzWn8tsHKRhYYaFbyXfuRDHq16pvUGeCWfE O+CB+aJpYyY2MjODrFw8QOQ/e2/DrDy76KS1EcqKLLMzqaw4uM7vdGjHnvmwsq8ceF/n /4wT+jWVBlXdfvVyQIwFapBwr/io7uO+WozMqrIsOYHqNBVTeILxtEA2cSoG8X2WTegg xbpepSJe9JibGhjOMQHojUeIShEKVhkL1yT/yP51dF75nnUqvPov8zdzB0xTpv3jVeIx dw7Kmz3nHykNvplNQsTrwLoOk128xbOWw/9+nP910/3e3/+x2KApJQAS/FSLjfJGiZnW nLtg==
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=GdD2jrv3UtSumG102GYrQO86UliXkJic5vV18l/gpaw=; b=fkuwWTQaEyze/nJFV9vwQF96qAnOcgwN40AlkG1+gP5YBlaM5ROVCP7s81LktHHakl VTOAXRonxfgNMWjsQZy73rCJ47liQVqMN0NnLt3uu6wLGsUY0pG0b5xof/XLVjBeDsoD 1kV52vxuv2maaFj/1I7XRqvjM6EGmnRAtIzj5bjOyvH1tkrpIesakudohG1zQ5U+qwLd MjE57sryb8iQ5DGGLvXkOHvlQ7xvaxI7502fmrFEAGCuCIZ33oJFlbd16cr4x0ZkkDaI ls4s3d3zu50weySLEx2j0Nqi/cr9CY7udYvKngB5bjIROBeKTtl6DrWkU1tt9zfT7uwb /6bQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305LyOpjlweZJqG5kULBY78v4Nc03X+EhjPYNJDx4PRHxVelDT0 6Yp0H+pJj31Wj0GFvc3t4WHv/nui3ChIo/uFivo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpwIqLJewPaGLe3+PsGrbga3OtZC+BQPeFowUe/9NigsNE5T6jADorC6lRYbGCTfs2B5PuNl9a0HGh69yM3K4=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:31f3:: with SMTP id w48mr12027315uad.87.1595293111972; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ab2296fb-201a-3bfb-f61c-27848ac5acf3@bluepopcorn.net> <CAJ4XoYdU1==PJOKKuG+WFv1sSYD=rudPsoDpEPrbY8+f0FmMXA@mail.gmail.com> <f774bb8f-d586-4368-05ff-d277e8645d54@bluepopcorn.net> <CAL0qLwbq7pZE4TLPK6A9JspKy0XneK36hxAdrhiLb1Y-AcodOA@mail.gmail.com> <108ffa74-4cf5-5348-5a7d-713e0413ae29@tana.it> <CAL0qLwYTF-GCZaB1hugJuLT5=g6qcTeXod73XnvbJrJUs0hz6A@mail.gmail.com> <96e11fae-99f5-b552-b959-6adf9d085a42@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <96e11fae-99f5-b552-b959-6adf9d085a42@tana.it>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 17:58:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZhoqJvaxZifnAJn=T45pkDVHFxNcAC3J+eRN48g0hvRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040777c05aae91fea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Vq4r-XIpVSiqudr-Ga_ZX75cnV8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC threat analysis needed
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 00:58:34 -0000

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Sun 19/Jul/2020 20:13:46 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:14 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> Still unresolved, IMHO, is Dave's point about whether the RFC5322.From
> >>> domain truly matters.
> >>
> >> While the opinions of big players are relevant, you yourself mentioned
> >> that they tend to follow DMARC design. >
> >
> > Sorry, I said what?
>
>
>      Google strikes me as the kind of place that would make a decision
>      about what to show users based on data, so I was wondering if they
>      have any, because I seem to remember them talking about this back
>      when DMARC was in development.
>      [
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/P6-4mvdCrRVXEz6DQXGunBsRKqA/]
>

When I said "back when DMARC was in development", that meant Gmail had
already done what I described, not that they were inspired to do what DMARC
said.  Gmail was part of that effort, in fact.

So no, I didn't say "they tend to follow DMARC design".  The order is
backwards.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email