Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 14 July 2020 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 C3BFB3A086F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 xjC21uMFeKsa for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 853F63A0843 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1594749656; bh=xk2FFxSOhIe17lP6HGU6KXT6BfiOXGQabhe8SFeyRyM=; l=1125; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DQFI1oyYjDbRbX86db50aOJ7AcuFaKhcwRz6ZCDHboeasLkbrGqsMypO/MLnbGWv1 pHAybTlGFg/j6BMMn+pX7Vzei9R2T7CqS+dR5fD0yn7jNpfyTalwHpD0aGcnRvI0Qf w8HRl/J0LaDRHY0c4XxJE5gZ6TEI57skya0Ir/ZCM64zaqVE6/cniHvdyHiYD
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC042.000000005F0DF2D8.000077D0; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 20:00:56 +0200
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <04ecbbf8-ccff-a771-8e8b-fc2b582b0431@gmail.com> <5F0C96C9.8050104@isdg.net> <23887878-4240-328a-4716-b67dd8d218db@gmail.com> <CAMSGcLCG8U=DOQX9qByX7KkNAobdPwGA3dAoRZFNy7faRTHcfQ@mail.gmail.com> <3bdc7ad9-5a2b-1f45-7596-d75bb5d5bb36@tana.it> <83b1a66f-a2c4-4848-01f9-6de740a0c7c3@gmail.com> <d71540d0-c3df-d847-6c0d-ce6ef47514af@tana.it> <9ac83e80-0927-99c0-1ddf-4683545cc762@gmail.com> <632b0510-b379-ac94-0924-7f6176e08b4b@tana.it> <f9c02c64-73f7-044a-3811-5784ebc732b2@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <2b0faeee-0fbd-711b-dfce-696beeb9df54@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 20:00:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f9c02c64-73f7-044a-3811-5784ebc732b2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/pA8Wo3Qk0JUgC8dQvLss7tqmHQo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
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, 14 Jul 2020 18:01:01 -0000

On 14/07/2020 19:48, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/14/2020 10:42 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On 14/07/2020 19:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Forgive me, but I do not understand how your note, in any way, responded to 
>>> the substance of my query.
>> The bad thing is that _dmarc.fm.bank looses the effect of stopping phishing 
>> attempts, as the Sender: domain would override.  It keeps the ability to 
>> generate feedback about authentic messages, though.
> 
> 
> One more time...
> 
> DMARC does not stop phishing attempts.


Uh?

    DMARC is designed to prevent bad actors from sending mail that claims
    to come from legitimate senders, particularly senders of
    transactional email (official mail that is about business
    transactions).  One of the primary uses of this kind of spoofed mail
    is phishing (enticing users to provide information by pretending to
    be the legitimate service requesting the information).  Thus, DMARC
    is significantly informed by ongoing efforts to enact large-scale,
    Internet-wide anti-phishing measures.
                          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-2.4


Best
Ale
--