IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 05:18 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 3A20D3A1043 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:18:52 -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=FmFU4CRv; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=A7F+b7Ne
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 djtCJGL9CAnx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:18:50 -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 7A50C3A103C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62502 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2020 05:18:47 -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=f423.5fcdbb37.k2012; bh=6rJK0UkQmECYNsgFgojoCe0SKHCVgbAsfs+yJKeYOF0=; b=FmFU4CRvqTqwxNHDBDCv4RUNnjdiDCZqJnUqg0f+wB0qHJ4K0aV0K7ateZv3Lg4VRa57Ver6ASHYf2Sdw18p7gLvyPmRxUYjVxA5PFMWQgS4MsZQ5bOwXSEkvjwVZsZMWuMiAOndsTvr4UiYzT9POPe4xjLAmV1lNYkNREYNGsUICTK/pRfGAyPjFF1ISFvBHWjERbmHsHsSJHH4npHIkO9PSaZEyjYjnugwQueO8idPyt0BpnIyNOSCTBXe292IwMQMy7fZD8Pgi5n+2otPhcjCn3NxM08OZzlvrRuoN+4S4D6TxusLjRSLZNB9DVs3/BF1YD+UUP9dl5IxW/TQmw==
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=f423.5fcdbb37.k2012; bh=6rJK0UkQmECYNsgFgojoCe0SKHCVgbAsfs+yJKeYOF0=; b=A7F+b7Ne/0Z3CELEQUYw12ZrqEwVvXjtLL2pRM6HXH/cjmjJGaCGA8LWQUAup5Qh7WWtSR6yYK4DssQyGUpbS+mfLY4rLPFFYMlxPqGfnycmF5NXDjw0QNBtJ6cNA+Q8ksRF2FOJekGsVLYX27KTVhz1pE2C1k96XobrnCVbtid+YSAZQZHQ7zIKeK8qKJAERdX+c2CHmobVFW3Ckk4gdn4LOB/Fos4HQf8QrOqqsVmiNIMesdykyuuJZencIOM87pvREOww84p4YwBow+NAQs2MXAcRHK72TYcw7krtXSfNnlRO8RzdXwMQ04za7qByl2Brp0roNjV098LBF3UCOQ==
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; 07 Dec 2020 05:18:47 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id CBEEE291CC3F; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 00:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:18:46 -0500
Message-Id: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb3pLVFkOiuKeY38Kk9wEiesbyZCiBy72Ls5yRwN6EpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
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/ZVcEdcXtsxTKkoWL3zBEhkR8yLA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] not ADSP, was is DMARC informational?
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 05:18:59 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwb3pLVFkOiuKeY38Kk9wEiesbyZCiBy72Ls5yRwN6EpdQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:

>As I recall, people took a run at trying ADSP and it was largely
>unsuccessful.  I recall at least Yahoo, PayPal, and Google trying it but
>finding that it interfered with their employees' participation in lists, so
>they each invented new domains for their employees to use as separate from
>their operational public services.  This basically led to its demise.

Among ADSP's shortcomings was that there was no way to test it other
than to turn it on and see how much damage it caused.  The answer was
frequently a lot, so they turned it back off and that was that.

DMARC certainly has its problems but the reporting is great. It makes
the surprises when you turn DMARC on a lot less, at least if your name
is not AOL or Yahoo. 

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email