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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 0E22112012E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:39:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=nsFaeZ9q; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=Ih+i5Svq
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 24u4JZ74BXL8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2EFA12011A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15EBF80308 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:39:38 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1580848778; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=QIViY+MrSzSIoUdMEqVWUyNOTE78/BfjPuB4XcG4+44=; b=nsFaeZ9qTcCCvuOeCIyzluHnhG8EIdxjT2FFxPAaBPVE+ZygCIxcOKvo 20kNnRzNIWwsqe/aMsqP6KIdyHIXDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1580848778; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=QIViY+MrSzSIoUdMEqVWUyNOTE78/BfjPuB4XcG4+44=; b=Ih+i5SvqFoYfFuf4UWzS5NHPyibR1uLiAzM7YqDN+ZTWaT4JbSQukEb5 CjDPY74VFJIu4qz3iaa4rPl4Wr57Jhoufec6a+fKrIzgu/JHubzFZcNtjS JbvezL+jDVH2aSKwm8g2FfLPdhLB5+vs74m0MfRQ3Msb5IPBLAtSOvyO8G kBevXLkGSo7I0qxFdDmBAAlvNkxaQp5GitrsoDxjcdkhkRdAT7iKsSvsH/ hPSzREPq1AgbzVFcFovGv/Ue9YXpjwwmEPRZ4DStOFRzdEClocuNa+fdsK KSZm3g1fK2auOy92ncLiXfFJ7KzzZEjASY81+oXbf4H9CvBO3NBmIQ==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84082F801EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:39:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:39:38 -0500
Message-ID: <1975032.yYTNxk3MA7@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY-v-VS-Wai-aqGRPOj1i8HxqMrYybzsNJGzN2dTHvG9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xcWePdGBxbKd4rHRjbZF_OWYt90>
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, 04 Feb 2020 20:39:41 -0000

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> Someone pointed to Sender-ID as an example experiment. A very poor example
> to choose. It was broken from the start. As an aside, I kept sending email
> to the folks at Microsoft using @Microsoft.com email addresses by using
> "Sender" to game PRA to get a neutral". Furthermore, it dragooned senders
> who had no intention of participating in the experiment by reusing their
> published SPF records in a manner they did not intend them to be used. I
> also point out how long it took to put a stake in the heart of Sender-ID.
> And yet even today we can find Sender-ID records littering the Internet and
> even a few places doing Sender-ID checks. For some definition of "We", we
> are good at additions and modifications but poor at deletes.

That was me.  I agree it was a horrible idea.  The point wasn't that Sender ID 
was great, it wasn't.  The point was that the AIB considered it reasonable as 
an experiment.  I think this is far less risky than that was.  I was trying to 
respond to the idea what the IETF doesn't support experiments where there are 
technical concerns about the nature of the technology.  The AIB's position, as 
I read it, was that such experiments are fine and if the IESG has concerns, 
they should add a note to document.

Scott K