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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 9CDF53A1015 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 KSb5qeYXSQMI for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (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 0AFE23A1013 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id e23so7928837pgk.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 21:31:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=y578QlIZ4NWaOT6xjBDyWUhSeQe7ppz131l66z6AHUI=; b=DlceJTAsjsABqQRILuqbmkQjjC7xcPTau4pGUExz5AhJ5V4dinRqqla2klumPxfutL swMKTSG5hEVUJFDjHlEFx6L4q58wswLhUQwirASpYCfpNCQkoUsA/jsYOumZSbkSIFvS 2IkBM2bQRTTaEiYPw7ds32QlKfBoEyDWqbYmZcIklCr3Sx4cm/jJhHvrTRPcXMZwNJ1/ VqBxplLfJODgZ8h0cYg5Ky/Qb/2K2Kq1q8iFK0zDm5Q0HKPWxNebFEY9bMH+aOeNYnz9 Gb+MZOqqk8AEhFjPIwICpHz2Fi1y1hE0WWCa9H00FrofNtnMnP7a9by0WO9fiOxDD2DV k1eQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=y578QlIZ4NWaOT6xjBDyWUhSeQe7ppz131l66z6AHUI=; b=DOzr0wIz6C6Bjk6fy9Qkk4W+3m3ytpM6IGJXGnIZwuWfVpyRY0x7Y4osJh025aC3qQ E06DS2Ht8oGSYLza7X19pEhUM695iMIcIUZkn4PUa8UxzdpOLm/zNiidHIHZUxn891sQ w8AK1lNc78+pb+8Ny3WIpmiD4ACOB3hYFq805QViUcMl8jxONfLmU7Rsed96hsLjBrBw z5icb8XEwApsCy2xcAXyJGLVXFsy4v/CIzUPJ6sk2ubqeo6c0t6SSWUmXF7T7xm16dNf n8giFjrYuMGl1OLRl24YqXCcY5NT8geME/0O5i0zk58kKQ06fBSh979n29bfd+D38QD1 89jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GGRFPA70zofvZs3RI97m+xDVC53MDjySAWn+CxVPdwkErPhDf tf2cHyolMI0TamMaDukQwZ2oszlCOzd72g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/FSSTtN6wsgxUTtFpI0aSac9U3CJEEdVoSdrSgTl1MK67X8AJk//froRweQWnZQMeoTZwJw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5b23:: with SMTP id p35mr17006888pgb.143.1607319068011; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 21:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-42-108.volcanocom.com. [107.182.42.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o189sm6815739pfd.73.2020.12.06.21.31.06 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Dec 2020 21:31:07 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <e4db313a-630b-32e9-f3bb-00baf5e8e884@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:31:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201207051846.CBEEE291CC3F@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gpWTHiS6wakF1cJZZQVavmhmWqY>
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 05:31:12 -0000

On 12/6/20 9:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
> 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.

but apparently y! is doing DMARC in the face of its inadequacies anyway. 
i really like the reporting capabilities as an auditing tool as well, 
but it doesn't change much on the ground with the basic problems. it 
just confirms that it's a bad idea to use p=reject in many cases. there 
are clearly many use cases where that isn't a problem -- like bank 
transactional mail -- and ADSP was just fine for that. nothing much has 
changed on that front in 15 years. I find it amusing to be talking about 
this all these years later, with all kinds of companies trying to 
capitalize on the new and mostly unimproved dmarc.

Mike