Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 19 March 2020 11:41 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 9F69D3A27D1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 04:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 eE_nE1ChrchO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 04:41:15 -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 4F1B33A27CC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1584618064; bh=bNBPKKlFLi6l7hHZGW3gCYivKWO4wiQqT90Rl8FQER4=; l=837; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A0uUtspQmabGzx4jJCcaa1qW0T1eENLqZdVGSBw2w35GizVFRYfSrieHS8w0Bfr6z 7lB5kTwcSGDQUxChHCrg/lufayPuX6XoY48qZUxHRVF+l93zXBL0/RpTaLtHxWW0EM 2Wr6mHfocO3yHMPeogEauOqfCX/tjWZWU60ucSlcyfB4EiJR4PWSUcN3S9BY/
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: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC077.000000005E735A50.00006AC4; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:41:04 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200319011703.E1A70163EB3F@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <d7adc292-b1b3-bddf-ae7e-df68e58c82ce@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:41:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200319011703.E1A70163EB3F@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bBbv9a0CCNf4vIdfkld6FYxSC3Q>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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, 19 Mar 2020 11:41:25 -0000

On Thu 19/Mar/2020 02:17:03 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> 
> I do a hard reject of any mail with a nonexistent bounce address which I
> don't think is unusual.

How about nonexistent From: address domain?  Rejecting these is less usual (IME
because of joe@NOSPAMexample.com) although DMARC shifted the accent here.


> PSD as I understand it is to address the same issue the organizational
> domain does, but a level up, in a group of organizations that have
> some administrative connection.  The issue is people who publish A and
> MX records without covering DMARC records.  They're not supposed to do
> that but they do, and PSD is one way of figuring out who needs to fix what.


It also covers From: trustme@nonexistent.mil.  That way we can reject on
nonexistent From: addresses for a subset of PSDs.


Best
Ale
--