Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Sat, 27 March 2021 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 4E96E3A127B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 ojkK3M9k0mNA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (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 D06723A127A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8QL7d8TkNIKMrB7T3WazN5WyvwJw7SrmuEzQB9eChPA=; b=Mg/q4f6sAJiJonONYDxo5R7bRc FQPruZ58cFlCnu6RjFK1pREeXJmoSwm0H+gkK8NmrFyhynbUaIGOXnWT9mOX4dKWAnqAjfigepdrX E9aXigxffPCocDTqoAAcQoNLyBhfl84Wt7FCmYPCkhmpDoLJBo4dtkTsTS9JVUruB1L8=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:a182:59b6:b97f:f304] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1lQG5L-0003Gp-I7; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 14:03:08 -0700
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "Gren Elliot" <gelliot@mimecast.com>, "Kurt Andersen" <kboth@drkurt.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 14:03:06 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <EFC1DADA-C5F5-4B18-9463-878A670A6164@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <2ea2767-4940-77d1-e09e-a0ab215f9c9e@taugh.com>
References: <F1E2D8D7-9978-4C4B-9FD7-AB6428D12789@contoso.com> <20210324202058.91E777134D1B@ary.qy> <CABuGu1ovwwwwZALDOed74nBu1gOHcom8W+UDKC2GdWiEE_7yKw@mail.gmail.com> <4677E791-B028-4CAC-9752-0F4D8F1B0103@mimecast.com> <2ea2767-4940-77d1-e09e-a0ab215f9c9e@taugh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/e9uzOzyJZBTHn00j9LHBBABQAwM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses
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: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:03:20 -0000

On 25 Mar 2021, at 11:23, John R Levine wrote:

>> Calconnect’s TC-CALSPAM group is currently looking at this issue 
>> and yes, the reason is because of real world corporations that use 
>> multiple brands with different domains.  Typically employees got a 
>> single email address on one of their domains but often work with 
>> people who have email addresses in different domains.
>
> Oh, OK.
>
> It sounds like they're asking DMARC to do things it doesn't do. If you
> can't ensure that everything sent with your domain on the From line is
> signed with your signature, you shouldn't publish a DMARC policy.

Agreed, but in some cases, such as US Government agencies, the 
publication of a p=reject policy is required:

https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/18-01/

Unfortunate IMO that they created this requirement based on an 
informational RFC.

-Jim