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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 21 March 2019 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 9B212131150 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=LdWg9Gnf; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=AouKx6mW
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 AALb6osm1M5C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 DC9571310E1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19031 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2019 14:31:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4a54.5c93a025.k1903; bh=7jKTMufPzlo3ot4rOzrvZSyKYXAuqWE/SjASl3BIBCw=; b=LdWg9Gnf+6B0fRC2sUiH/p849L2k3iga4+0CAE56D7W3ZFs+q8U60Usfq+JjarUqe4p/4WnTZk/yKQ4MPzuKjWTishTCTsM+DGVhMkP5KXo7kAj4UHzmRD07V9Z1cdvteqZgrZaU/8QCjgOPTL2QLHAH4IzCwNKKQcXd0KUwCITbD9IxBR/EaGcrv3CZI22WAWGD7qEgGxMPHcSWWNVqdWNWWrX6jRiq/wdus8MAGJ9R5sTJkqT5FKnPSBFbPbFF
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=4a54.5c93a025.k1903; bh=7jKTMufPzlo3ot4rOzrvZSyKYXAuqWE/SjASl3BIBCw=; b=AouKx6mWHfT2UZFTqbeqT2O/7u2zKiW/sfOvmlOYaiDB6O4fvjK36gOLwNDNAyyaZEpMzFIaFMv6XwAm4blfO1Jo4EV3MR6dsTvBLZ21JlNJzNhUZhpqhNSPoPrBTP1l1wXso7mX6en5kVEApk8R+rSYx95fWcwVz+/esOUlpTLlAlKgGW8D09ITZ/rcl0VK9J8i5t8Mln5OLsZan/RJeezNyZPNB/CbIPpKKOEhr3EgfvURPfNO9vFbZTmKnNfi
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 21 Mar 2019 14:31:01 -0000
Date: 21 Mar 2019 10:31:00 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1903211029360.83149@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "DAMY gustavo" <gustavo.DAMY@upu.int>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <b8534bcf921f4b26a65bd1939dd81219@PEXC01.upu.ch>
References: <20190319184209.804E42010381DB@ary.qy> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903201442260.7108@softronics.hoeneisen.ch> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1903201042010.79863@ary.qy> <b8534bcf921f4b26a65bd1939dd81219@PEXC01.upu.ch>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/j9buBGJUJ-aCJEJdWCoIDMcSEi4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?
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, 21 Mar 2019 14:31:05 -0000

> But if the AIM is to have an end to end easier to implement encryption + 
> phishing protection, probably it would make sense?

Not really.

> This will not reduce the SPAM but using DMARC and properly tune the 
> policy P=reject; pct=100 would help to secure the content and reduce the 
> phishing, (and sure definitely will not help to avoid SPAM)  from those 
> compromised accounts.

Nope.  Please review my previous message.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly