Re: [dmarc-ietf] Domains and tree walk

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C2BBB3A0AF9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=iecc.com header.b=pL1PhY6Z; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=GgH/L4oC
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 5T42Fnqv4lDo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 5E8D13A0B6F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11265 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2020 03:31:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=2bff.5fd196ab.k2012; bh=OkjjvzKZ7ZL6eKIY8tz/zBjgC0H3Dzfr6hivecdvhdU=; b=pL1PhY6ZIMOvx3tngylPr+L/egs6LRZdmNVFodpo2KBox1oodQANYmjP9c3EjOsd8DvH97kLZMz7y3/q5rKWtZ7xQ5uOzn1X4NxniU8UN42UeQ48u5hWZ+ICFnZM1luMTFECzL7Lc+wSthVeRzECsF6F9hFrWR4LU8XqKQVr6TC6OEQHbLTELKONTD3f7lKZKVTCWvBPTO7eP3FyiRJTKaqvSZ97VZE60T/1LDP1X9WgBq8dy9tz2cv7ek38UvQ14KUUKl31C0vcsnFXezWnKO1XedH1Tbkcdy88kKglKF1CvsMv/vZqMkSAh6lfq4lwOGhYK6YaC7rJ46g5hX4Jnw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=2bff.5fd196ab.k2012; bh=OkjjvzKZ7ZL6eKIY8tz/zBjgC0H3Dzfr6hivecdvhdU=; b=GgH/L4oCgNApCJzlk7nqdv5XDtN1Ehu8R/1HbiOyfSnNPiAXx6NuHnmHkGZhjpmuJSOUky2BEdbo8O2JZvamlz+i19UXDajqtirXiCUXbgIEz1wYFSWl4Unz8eQFVe9OmK1UQzYaKJd5LNTIVAUTKu30ZWmiShfRih9/eo+qlKTW9YtUeOp5ZqIKZy9It/mAKTUQ7MdZLyEYNJudRZM/scRTxp4Dq4lUOPWkUp+8NsrdnpwKJixSGzt6zABO/9H02+uhoYab3PikvxgiCrMbeqsArc8Uf4wFOT/WofwuJ9GApp/ZIbVQv6VNdPhDT+RvJg9ed212hlemBFP4OGj9hA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 10 Dec 2020 03:31:55 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id DC28F294BD52; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 22:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: 9 Dec 2020 22:31:54 -0500
Message-Id: <20201210033154.DC28F294BD52@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: jesse.thompson@wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: <b54e5d04-a90b-8bae-9224-2c94409ef39d@wisc.edu>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WrJielnkPYwV_4_0vmy5H-AIMmY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Domains and tree walk
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:32:24 -0000

In article <b54e5d04-a90b-8bae-9224-2c94409ef39d@wisc.edu> you write:
>I would hesitate to assume that seeing p=none on a domain as an indicator that they are serious about deploying DMARC and reconciling their
>own Holy Roman Empire conundrums; rather it's there just to not be seen as lagging behind their peers, justifying funding for more SOC
>staff and perhaps buying some tools (*some* of which, hopefully, may be deployed to actually solve the issues identified in the DMARC
>reports).

I figure they're collecting reports to see where their mail is going.
That's what I do. The reports are interesting even if you have no
intention of ever publishing a policy other than p=none.

>For better or worse, DHS BOD 18-01 mandated that all federal agencies publish p=reject on their domains.  Now, *that* must have forced each
>agency to figure out how to actually deploy DMARC and deal with the implications.  I applaud the tenacity.

Hahaha. It means they published SPF and DMARC p=reject records and
checked it off. I've been dealing with fairly important mail to my
users falling on the floor ever since.

R's,
John