IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==0019ccb4d59==fosterd@bayviewphysicians.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 C18F9120123 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:55:43 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bayviewphysicians.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 4n3zg9a0qy-E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bayviewphysicians.com (mail.bayviewphysicians.com [216.54.111.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FB59120118 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1554764140-0990573e635f790001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id oWdjMAn0FSCePQ0z (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-ASG-Whitelist: Client
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h= content-type:mime-version:message-id:reply-to:date:subject:to:from; bh=xorY7xfGhBwgO3Qg6ZdpWxj6vEn5sj17gxlMnheXnDw=; b=kNvlwCtq8AT731FfA9bSVSDvepLZ7JmRY0rOIX/AnBzCbqCvGMl0U8CQFLnNbn35J kw92rYYyfbNpyxBpFuVC1j1nwZWox9M9KkQn/DIjaLlZKw6aarITMePD6+Ftn8PnH VkQsQt9kFsR275iwykVzK+92od5pYUe5KSYV5fff0=
Received: by webmail.bayviewphysicians.com via HTTP; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:55:31 -0400
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:55:31 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs
Reply-To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Message-ID: <08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872@bayviewphysicians.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="ef4592c37f07445c9073c05ac60d8985"
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.239]
X-Exim-Id: 08252783d22443e79b707537df97c872
X-Barracuda-Connect: smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1554764140
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384
X-Barracuda-URL: https://mail.bayviewphysicians.com:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 1212
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ndTuDzAX1X7V_mk1-GlH4gBy0DM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs
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, 08 Apr 2019 22:55:44 -0000

I don't know how to express my shock at today's conversations.   One of the 
shocks comes from this:
  
 We have consensus that the better email filters do not need the DMARC for 
PSDs standard, because they are already blocking non-existent domains.   
The inferior email filters are not expected to implement this feature, 
because they are inferior products.   Therefore the new standard has no 
expected benefit, but we need to finish it anyway.
  
 Please explain.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email