Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 19 August 2021 11:18 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 35AD03A0C36 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) 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 ECU6blID_AGR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 9399B3A0C22 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1629371926; bh=QmrbnUti6J8HGkl0daaUMFoW3JQRH8CNqRybNQy5xvw=; l=1175; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bc4zyYHJqO0a8zooC+vtSbS2tBrRsjdu1LrRjPfz5giO6Ej14z/1LuHwnyyvzycK9 sQEvL2w6YLcTwknG5hVqtx/Gy9RxJd7iBWe+C0ymt8u4SYn4yZr+d2287XnnWJKJIO OdZgsg2RiOmnyxffNAwZpoYcKfdtMyKwE/7PXqfZ8JAc437sbepNc6sH3PzLu
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([2.198.14.132]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0D8.00000000611E3E16.00003325; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:18:46 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <162931752865.27585.10197515584988072678@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHej_8mcwKcjwxV09_6ENrOnh5t+seDv_kTZiO0mgyRS2BVgTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <3e4b2087-a866-6f66-3964-71a3c67eab8b@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:18:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8mcwKcjwxV09_6ENrOnh5t+seDv_kTZiO0mgyRS2BVgTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/zJlijOU4pdPnyN6M-XV3LRDXF88>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt
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: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:19:05 -0000

On Wed 18/Aug/2021 22:17:57 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> 
> The main update in this draft is removal of the "pct" tag, with an 
> explanation as to why, and an introduction of the "t" tag in an effort 
> to maintain the functionality provided today by "pct=0" and "pct=100".


As held earlier, I disagree with such gratuitous breaking of the 
existing installed base and published records.

It goes without saying that domains who are publishing pct=0 will 
slowly adapt by adding t=y and never removing pct.  Those who publish 
pct=50 and are satisfied with it will have to give up, despite their 
own operational experience.

In any case, I object to the use of the Probability Mass Function as 
applied to Binomial Distributions argument.  It presumes that the 
percentage in question refers to the number of messages sent during a 
given day, which was never specified.  The spec said "Percentage of 
messages from the Domain Owner's *mail stream*".  The random function 
applied to such stream is equivalent to computing a Monte Carlo 
integration on a finite set.  Since *all samples* are eventually 
considered, the result tends to the exact value.


Best
Ale
--