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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 7A045131521 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, 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=nrPOam/A; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Z6dd3483
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 MSD3Eg2-t2kz for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:42:11 -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 2585D131513 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24106 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2019 18:42:09 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5e26.5c913801.k1903; bh=JpSKbAXZ8Q1K/s62lGymQxQhf0idbrOoA7PHNx8aVf0=; b=nrPOam/ABBE7VKC2r8p4fQ4sEgjWtLsJvE04HLa1zspgoAIALxe+5FlaOAXuECwlzbHS65Lu68+w+4LmZWhUuOT10b4qzcOV6Sa3nvFEwLgpvg2FBzFz5fqZ4iQeszEnjCroagQ62Vy8e7TLvrqgs5/YVl8JsdK7k4JPI9fpkTBK30sATE7Bfys2Ex3ZVtpRxjYIh1L49HVzCDztdvFA+mHzh4CI/c59J4sRD8X+mtHLb9ajZVoUMRAjHF6MSNeL
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5e26.5c913801.k1903; bh=JpSKbAXZ8Q1K/s62lGymQxQhf0idbrOoA7PHNx8aVf0=; b=Z6dd3483BhMp9/lDxId5z23MSiXiIz4sFf/Kq8HmkuP7q/s82fJiiFH8cuucmhcX5yIjIZOqYDXbPotHYQCd/YvocruDMtOIFp9qXmFRrCn7xZ46PlbdwwXuMPr/Abvjvmny52lioO2EN8RZC/og0TK7wfmrLY6xBpz5EU2PQ+hhb8dLt6NXTZHpXjPligDOHW9lEClIgRmppsYmmzo4mCgceLT4Pnz4Sc7vCNjHOuouj8o7HUa9pyRFMoNfnWuI
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 ESMTP via TCP6; 19 Mar 2019 18:42:09 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 804E42010381DB; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 19 Mar 2019 14:42:09 -0400
Message-Id: <20190319184209.804E42010381DB@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <002a01d4de81$18ac27b0$4a047710$@bayviewphysicians.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oNn6CQb9FKcdWEJch2yj4MirjWs>
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:42:14 -0000

In article <002a01d4de81$18ac27b0$4a047710$@bayviewphysicians.com> 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.

Be careful what you wish for, and remember that bad guys can use all
our shiny toys, too.

R's,
John