Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?

Bernie Hoeneisen <> Wed, 20 March 2019 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCAC1294B6 for <>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwFe1EcdYhiK for <>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1990212787F for <>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1h6bqJ-0006aI-Np; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:05:19 +0100
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:05:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <>
To: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <20190319184209.804E42010381DB@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <>
References: <20190319184209.804E42010381DB@ary.qy>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:05:26 -0000

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, John Levine wrote:

> In article <002a01d4de81$18ac27b0$4a047710$> you write:
>> Can one of you elaborate on the potential connection between PeP and DMARC,
>> or more generally, the connection beteen PeP and spam filtering?
> I presume that PeP would make spam filtering much harder since the filters can't
> look inside the messages.

This is a mutual challenge of email systems that use true end-to-end 
encryption. While those improve Privacy, spam mitigation means need to be 

On the other hand, pEp (inherently) also provides some additional means 
for spam mitigation / detection (on the client), e.g. end-to-end 
authentication of the peer user.

If pEp is applied on top of existing email infrastructure (which is likely 
the case in most scenarios), DMARC can also be used in conjunction with 
pEp emails.