IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> Sun, 27 September 2020 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <btv1==53944c58cc9==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 6513D3A1071 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 eJeaaQJYyx8s for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:48:12 -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 705443A106F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1601228890-11fa3109a823c0f0001-K2EkT1
Received: from webmail.bayviewphysicians.com (smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com [192.168.1.49]) by mail.bayviewphysicians.com with ESMTP id VcWvd8Y5tzIDjmnY (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 13:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 192.168.1.49
X-SmarterMail-Authenticated-As: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bayviewphysicians.com; s=s1025; h=message-id:reply-to:subject:to:from; bh=zZTt7Acz6sVsy8yy2mbDSEZznPP6l5ZendGTLGqMSJQ=; b=L+x1Db7JTiO7WgmPykJiGpsFu0G+UNhsDTIWcljaXLqEeYQ/N/pveHWTAvA93xwGF A4TuCZfNpgAoidw60l799cRIGGxnNz0odhXloou5DBuKdeFZgn/LDM9SnNigDUUSo 6zEJV1tGerdEFXxt/JM+3qXbvu6Fkcu0n+0x1nP+U=
From: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 13:48:02 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field
Reply-To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com
Message-ID: <4a2b520ab5bf4fbfbd432f0232092c5b@bayviewphysicians.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="6a8b56f839004f948a0c28325a88eea5"
In-Reply-To: <e0139ad6-b07a-73d0-12f9-079aa8d3ca2c@dcrocker.net>
References: <20200927171611.838B321D9BAD@ary.qy> <e0139ad6-b07a-73d0-12f9-079aa8d3ca2c@dcrocker.net>
X-Exim-Id: 4a2b520ab5bf4fbfbd432f0232092c5b
X-Barracuda-Connect: smartermail4.bayviewphysicians.com[192.168.1.49]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1601228890
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: 4405
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.84918 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/pIIVHLWn7aSxfdu4N9MBMbpzSYU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: 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: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:48:14 -0000

I'm confused.    

I thought we all agreed that From represents the author who is responsible for the content, and consequently it had importance to both the filtering process and the user.   I thought the issue at hand was that DMARC-induced header munging made the From address into something different then the address which best represents the author.   So it seemed like we had a lot to agree on.

Also, I thought a trust indicator was a statement like 
"The From Address is DMARC-verified", 
rather than 
"This message is from user@domain"

Which leads me to several questions
- Does the research support the idea that the From address is a trust indicator?   
- Is so, does it show that the only purpose of the From address is as a trust indicator?
- If "From" has purposes other than as a trust indicator, does it matter whether the value is correct or not?
- If it is true that the From address serves no purpose to the user, then is header munging really a problem?

DF

----------------------------------------

From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Sent: 9/27/20 1:26 PM
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

On 9/27/2020 10:16 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I suppose both are right to some extent, but they have very different
> implications for the design.

Except they aren't both right.

We know that it is used by filtering engines.

There is no evidence it is used by end-users. And there is a pretty long
history indicating such information is NOT used by end users.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email