Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender vs From Addresses

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 25 March 2021 21:53 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 2F3C53A0ADB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=L4hmFa8+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Bxu212vu
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 SPtNA0dw2jni for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:53:31 -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 747CA3A0ADF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15164 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2021 21:53:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=3b3a.605d0658.k2103; bh=Br4B/yrackEe+UhfmfNnGwhX4Cn7RfUTeOCbpT4AXH4=; b=L4hmFa8+hA8phFh9QnB1MpIyC2ooHKqnSHT14lfi9/qyorZrFk+2z6IIfcSs3i7K0Y4QAIFSwlFwRTbSXBk3AZLUoYngtGYcMI2VMngpYtb7bDLqNInwQEqYX9LAOAiPf30+gMzQjFUiShbRAIeI2idV5eT7PPqh4YkTwvyAgBNAnLo1JMdGFVQyTG2xO8O9hUf1biuVbEpSpG46Qp/cXgeU0tC5ftgfG6f7q+FkmoG5PzvcGNJurpw/S4rQgnA3vxMPcDx5j1a19qMyu0qM1QFcxDZtkoeHr/hA+LiEfmkIhYZGSCDk55VWLoE9Eoec2mkVVTe7OAr+S1iNzBXWTw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=3b3a.605d0658.k2103; bh=Br4B/yrackEe+UhfmfNnGwhX4Cn7RfUTeOCbpT4AXH4=; b=Bxu212vusi6NYUC+v0Pw5/6RKro4vKWTI38M+DN5xhMyjcT4e8p/s+R/HTGBOiqHCEAmHbarnluKaxfXuI4cTcFrXkiocbt7T5OT5JfU6nJly+REr9Xpr2YIsCWbdaNB9/TpClEvHGookZUmAFK1RE/uDRX9vclwwaCHW9DBAzIId1UDZIrLbooXK4P5RiGt+80+H33K7slMsGSxTocEZ3j3tYYscoJB4IxsZeY4hpHvyVxPfBzsHqRSd5fF/LX7gGrcuCYOUpMJwCwJQjj2nHB2YquSo7vmIIvAldT9gYTkJdIy2QwbIj8FKZKM3pW/MNTvxwz90Ji504ZtRd3SmA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 25 Mar 2021 21:53:27 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id CB7DE7143F3F; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F287143F21; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 25 Mar 2021 17:53:25 -0400
Message-ID: <78f077a1-99e2-35e1-2d26-50d1a112d2d@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Charles Gregory" <Charles@possumdelight.com>, "Gren Elliot" <gelliot@mimecast.com>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <4b2a5f14f09b4d009afb07b2963efe38@possumdelight.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> <07b0c7962b3e455bb341972e7fc4ca70@possumdelight.com> <bb85d27c-1aed-b6d-1875-962c8a19093@taugh.com> <4b2a5f14f09b4d009afb07b2963efe38@possumdelight.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kPi_dacW5EtZR6taqoDEpLXRnyQ>
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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 21:53:37 -0000

>>> It is a problem when receiving servers use DMARC existence and
>>> pass/fail to increase/decrease deliverability rates. - And when
>>> Yahoo/AOL pretty much block everything you send - even with a 98
>>> sender score, SPF, DKIM, and clean opt-in lists.
>
>> Are they rejecting on DMARC failure because you're publishing p=reject?
>
> NO p=none

I know people at Yahoo, and their filtering is largely based on complaint 
statistics.  If they're blocking your mail, the recipients are marking a 
lot of it as junk.  What do you see in the feedback reports?

> I DO think this is an unnecessary problem that CAN be fixed/improved in 
> one of two fairly straightforward manners through DNS (behavior switch 
> or list authorized alternate domains).  And I can't see anything but 
> upside in doing so; nobody has demonstrated a downside anyways.

I explained the downside to Sender a few messages back: it lets people put 
any address they want in the From line so it becomes just a filter on the 
reputation of the DKIM or SPF domain.  If that were adequate, they 
wouldn't have invented DMARC.

I agree that there is no particular downside to something like ATPS, but 
the fact that we've had ATPS for a decade and nobody has implemented it 
tells me that this is not a problem that the industry thinks is worth 
solving.

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