Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 59D723A16E3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 EANelKeFfZYV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (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 043533A16E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id p15so81219pjv.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=OLObngR+qWtgTlJX5qCePd1tdJzc6DJiPBoQrRaUavE=; b=DcnDIMWDgCwkw/281AJwN+Nt4Tm93kEpRxIvA8TCTslNB0Zd3LLp1XEDKcN4sfJWEo DyjKAac3dwbVKhuzkOTVF5lrS7EVFrmexFVyx7dfvGjlyQdLavGaKxrhfbLcjrgP//9s 0yI+D4N+hAGcoj6YgiTJIPNiFIyBwB60sVs9l2wYojlV9KIjC+K1JPw2sjMRNcWz92vA c7DrI7hn6GeQlSdC5LDDKFG3i9Xs+fX83vSYpYpa0/dkPOz9ZnAwxpmvZDoR4f2zK1pa QD8/eQYFWijA6oM4kzDrCcKYFddSbSSin2yGGxNDhUv2B1x7zM83HoLYE0pSA2T/jd75 OpDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=OLObngR+qWtgTlJX5qCePd1tdJzc6DJiPBoQrRaUavE=; b=Yvc+2qA5wTvSHqEySAvA/eVZrCXQfKekgc/k7YO/j8HftMSavybmzGmIA/liB4rF/6 HIAgR5zmIrZvXF6ePsx+A//x0UA0wediQmtdrp6Z/9iIjQGLtxAgaZ8Ynz8v6KNaHA2p zf2q5ovrY/r0NvFtdSzSfzF3pLA3AgqIJB1qc0CMGRPIr8VRCim8j14IdrHZDxUwouzk pHe85LGzvY1vhXXvCFM31tTkibGhhriTrDBa0K2pci4zUOBhumZIQF+WBUeI848IvMJ/ VmSzY0R0boPV6ncn1aBASGKL8W6j+jpTpiGDVa8/a8TTPrJoc8H+1AE91xulBxeRg/aH Icvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yVM5S7BU989VVABLqIFEMqWpaYQEsfXwtv5V+K5RhBIEikrkF xGLBYzEO8dPvoKp6zrgOyqiQ8Q8isPJJTw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSde5WXMJ6/+KXhxnJOji5lDYLVHc8B9lVQA+2qRDXqW3R2FW4wCn0alDebKtbEtI6NDs2Fg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ab8e:: with SMTP id n14mr1416975pjq.96.1611598240254; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-35-22.volcanocom.com. [107.182.35.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x81sm17369056pfc.46.2021.01.25.10.10.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <34317129-8225-fb38-4ad3-e1b9ffed21fb@iecc.com> <9c84fa50-d23c-a794-fc62-09788ac383a9@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com> <df867378-5da0-b912-2a0f-b2081d1f2437@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kfCC1H89pRjgxXK=+BizJHFdKgnr7Gxh_2wWq8P7L-0Q@mail.gmail.com> <a94cb6c0-0a32-da8d-4bd5-9c7ab2866c82@mtcc.com> <CAH48ZfxkQ9g-gmBOPdDsxr4RDvXOi56EaX=aJVDbuL_g7kR+xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfOB93fpYRjwxgQNkG-ydVHLtvgUp0LLROvv-F-amJVy4w@mail.gmail.com> <b9e8da8e-f46a-49c0-4196-1d50ed94d526@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfPh4kYq0yXhtP9BaPmtP_rc7L-0f=r3Ff_P3oxrhYqvtw@mail.gmail.com> <fd74120f-bfad-ef51-64d7-2f8ec4f00fab@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwaPmMGR48EUhNkmZTozjoiTMnC6Rfmjdo9vLYD6ZhNoAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfMcQ3HCrQAgKWeK-n2Acf+COK+E3HuCauh8g44KiWj=ng@mail.gmail.com> <25ea488b-e432-75c4-c57a-01d03308208c@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfP5n15=Ez6_SFmkyDOyF=mpD8npZJmJujKP1vw322fGLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <08263091-46d9-5973-c46d-7aad083c2dcb@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfP5n15=Ez6_SFmkyDOyF=mpD8npZJmJujKP1vw322fGLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xfEE3gpLY4Lglrm9A90S17-YZwI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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, 25 Jan 2021 18:10:45 -0000

On 1/25/21 10:02 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Michael, are you aware of anyone not following the guidance in the 
> document? This thread feels like we're discussing a non-issue. 
> Aggregate reports are already required to be authenticated and I'm 
> unaware of anyone sending failure reports, let along unauthenticated 
> ones. Is the language causing problems? Such problems have not been 
> brought to the list, and would be a good place to start if you want to 
> build consensus.
>
> The list seems to be digging in because no one has raised a use case 
> that shows a need to revisit the text. This was made worse by 
> asserting that reports must be authenticated, when the text already 
> makes that clear.

Obviously it isn't that clear. I looked for it and didn't find it. 
Several people just asserted that it wasn't a problem instead of 
pointing at the relevant text requiring it. Murray didn't seem to know 
about it either. That tells me that the current text is not specific enough.

> Ticket 99 is still in play, if and only if we decide on adding an 
> HTTPS transport for DMARC reports, of which historical consensus shows 
> this is unlikely. Let's press pause on that until the other discussion 
> is concluded, please.
>
This entire thread was by way of John Levine's proposing text for http 
and me responding about how to authenticate it. If you have a problem 
with that, take it up with him.

Mike