Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 03F2412018D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 lP1NGwQs7VAB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC05C1200D7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id k33so4417213uag.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UbInjtDAb+cSTONrAnLCUhGLjHdnLhMr48xIfrUJlw0=; b=jEVxCNNc76eG47/A/2v/ZJ1OSKi2j2l9qY283dkg7q0NYAa9NANHbv0iyyc8kA0fXd Qs3gpCQI/ChNqCrlHhSsYAbv2+OSgkoaqGnqz3Eu/5V6+ph71To4igTDHrpKBhf+fR6n jSuNa3Vy3KEABiiWtdxq3Bmo2k4K/NnsSVQ2kmhzVjTdI654UiIOHFvplpxn1gYryOmG NOy72wNR6ZL1KxuDfJsijPg0EteBzSIBbT1zj/FsMu/62Y/ct4nakFaFq8opv5jDNoPj 6QpwQBsoMgOkOEN/z7dB7ofA5R6FzHsY7Nm/ukDSla2U32fE47dP5HQNg5y5Vnbx+nSj tBGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UbInjtDAb+cSTONrAnLCUhGLjHdnLhMr48xIfrUJlw0=; b=PJmV5Z94WIj/vLq+kgf+11PN5uQG4ElwPs8Md/HY5qL32DYIQB1658/noDBbVz+T6H 2hcARGT2lSm/P5z6+hG3a9YYCJxv1/0azCqf/WVVoCN+HXLduaRrAY6fxVuy1+s0HB/z Uvae5jJovxlxLbOCVkuGvAEzJLc6fqiG44b9D/g7Jy1vao78OVY7KcCNGKuLC+T/7Zx1 gi4gWozWWAjHTBa3DgzWG+qi1R4d6SpWgv52gN6/OIeCraGwhsOJlNeRVDX0KEMkF0a8 dRc0Uk1CMImebIa+XWfNMGTMOODP2XxfsM2m6V5N/lJRdJEmbMERmbDj3cL8ezdOn0ep No+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXq2wTiiCFfPGQF6jIchbDHEFS9o8e30LUxhSR4j+ON+9MK0lJD 7NVVN208prUcnBBhFMAuthe83fgHfjXWh8Tsi0qc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzw/FBiDp30bhbJGjFbckMeeanM0eORIwIs18VPPdxpR0J4cv7lG42ZEtJXiPbXcCq0z92jI7/acZIoG6XPBTg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:21cb:: with SMTP id u11mr31008630uan.16.1576016013098; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <082f2102-693c-136d-874c-1182f12a6818@gmail.com> <CABa8R6vV3=mONXUehda_6C616CyEXPRjceSN8T+DcPmLQwcXOA@mail.gmail.com> <92703458.QmNNAb80T6@l5580> <CABuGu1ob6CYTt7_X1pMfGpajMOoytN3wuX_i+9MQf9nUYkzk0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1ob6CYTt7_X1pMfGpajMOoytN3wuX_i+9MQf9nUYkzk0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:13:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6vSYGWxR5SOEQq0GZ+++L=jhEpOThzaTeyPUd4gUT85SA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f7882059960d2f8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uQlIMP-ma67fsFznbuFe2MXuYuU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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, 10 Dec 2019 22:13:37 -0000

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:27 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>; wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:54 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 9, 2019 7:41:27 PM EST Brandon Long wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sure I probably missed this, but couldn't we avoid this question by
>> just mandating no reporting for non-existing organizational domains?  Is
>> that a non-starter?
>>
>> It's one of the use cases we are trying to cover.  I don't know if that
>> makes it a non-starter.
>>
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding Brandon's suggestion, it seems like you
> (Brandon) are asking if doing no reporting on missing org domains solves
> the scalability problem. *Getting* reports for missing org domains is the
> main purpose of the PSD proposal so it would render the purpose moot.
>

Hmm, I guess I don't see it that way.

Preventing phishing attacks from nonexistent.gov.uk, insomuch as DMARC can
be used for such, seems way more important than the reporting.  Obviously,
getting to p=reject without reporting is more challenging.  You can
certainly have policy without reporting.

Brandon