Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 13:41 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 C7BD012030F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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=Hh1elsf/; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=v9eewJSy
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 t3NFUj_QWx2I for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:47 -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 D3EB61201BD for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27008 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2019 13:41:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=697d.5cab4f99.k1904; bh=++CHb4tUFbx9s6/516cwAa/k5q67sbtSas1jI3ef/3k=; b=Hh1elsf/vt0LiYz6UOSFQOk4uIsjdnjEXaMZo9LPK68h73f9SMx4Y/L+QdASl4a5BDEqiVdVYaenrTY9zhBRfEw/WGhURiHCMkufuO2v+PJLAgE1b2iKF7PtBkSCMLrfW26vBK4Z1rkHAkP8fyb+VI2kEr8YfbapGpNv6jY+FnkmgTLtwBQPtWMHucxnmWpumUvSVnFUCJrsdnK5h+I3e2oB9HPjH5P3s7Js5lmiM/SDBoWazBtqm9qLZ+efTSwG
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=697d.5cab4f99.k1904; bh=++CHb4tUFbx9s6/516cwAa/k5q67sbtSas1jI3ef/3k=; b=v9eewJSyCMNcLox4fksvDsztHtUKuHsmsFgMHyMpsqtdM2hErMxjdW4uOrJZi0wSQQ5pXWx2PvPgcC4VP/RZUQ5ovZp8zYjfcLlKXCc4G8x5tW8tfKTCjHNx5XFGU5HB7IIAYuSupIkqlfore/VUngLU6NWmJRqgimFOg64dCR3meoZZveIN2LpBblu9CkAcRxRZfrDTaY7n/Vg1qKQ78IVl08GO0UQCKW2upGHnKuWQMXzV6+FQUVoftMYP5uEZ
Received: from localhost ([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; 08 Apr 2019 13:41:45 -0000
Date: 8 Apr 2019 09:41:44 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1904080939220.13124@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Douglas E. Foster" <fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <034c10b67aaf41a7809430c3c3b64c84@bayviewphysicians.com>
References: <20190408005045.5EC462011B2BFE@ary.qy> <034c10b67aaf41a7809430c3c3b64c84@bayviewphysicians.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/peHFPRWWM9giQnmScSGnj5JM7K4>
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 13:41:49 -0000

> Since bad email filters are the problem, why is there no IETF working
> group to define the expected behavior of email filters?    More
> importantly, can we start one NOW?

It's kind of outside the IETF's expertise -- there are people in the IETF 
(not in this WG) who believe that DNSBLs were a failed experiment in the 
1990s and nobody uses them any more.

There's also the perverse incentive that if you define the way filters 
work, you're giving bad guys a road map to avoid them.

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