[dmarc-ietf] DMARC domain, was Two new fields in aggregate reports

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 27 October 2019 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 66B3A12006B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 03:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1152-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=tana.it
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 rZXxC6bMjy9v for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 03:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B247312004C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 03:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1572171123; bh=76GNjPNJOUadeWPkAtN4g6QQR5Z4xXDN6kzjPvYczLY=; l=18057; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AjP8tt2DWVYcw4hWfc41NgDxYhrVibUnEJk1mKAkOFz3U3VCY7BgZ3gZLDysLSX3w kWfcbSBp4uG+WIlty/ZLavG+paRwpiLmm2r3IsGXrJBU0BPDDNP5zhCzTssbF9GBM/ sN0u1RuAPgHcJ5M/75G+V/ardJWwWDbVWutyEDiV61Jz43zwDH2TmLNGaidhC
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC083.000000005DB56D73.00005772; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 11:12:03 +0100
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <2c9f5a36-105f-22bd-2029-cb66867355c2@tana.it> <e5bc55efd6ef01ab849505a0872c9dc9a36e738f.camel@aegee.org> <682972a4-38e4-f5b2-3180-c5a03a3a08b4@tana.it> <CAJ4XoYd7GU6Ci0W=_DXkVLHXBrojk+LqseM5bP9n4wEYeHzFDA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <d73d752e-0361-aa5e-3dfa-92c1a726b71c@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 11:12:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_north-22386-1572171123-0001-2"
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYd7GU6Ci0W=_DXkVLHXBrojk+LqseM5bP9n4wEYeHzFDA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yGjNMmBVnWdEq4z7QkCeCgRRlMk>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC domain, was Two new fields in aggregate reports
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 Oct 2019 10:12:07 -0000

On Sat 26/Oct/2019 15:32:06 +0200 Dotzero wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:36 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>; wrote:
> 
>>
>> Well, spam score usually is hight for phishing too.  To counter phishing is
>> DMARC core business.
>>
> 
> Absolutely wrong. DMARC does one thing and one thing only - mitigate direct
> domain abuse. Bad guys can and have switched to using cousin domains,
> homoglyphs and other approaches to engage in spam, phishing and other
> abuse.


I conceive that as depicted.  Is it the agreed upon diagram?

Ale