IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B684D129696 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:02:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZU-smjqhpsSZ for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 742FE1294B4 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAHL35xU002965; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:03:05 -0800
Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.4]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uAHL31xM002954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:03:03 -0800
Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:01:59 -0500
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de>
Thread-Topic: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
Thread-Index: AQHSQRU2+zAiJwo7t0SJutdXHLh52qDdqS6Q
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:01:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05267AA2D4@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1611142158000.21738@ary.local> <01Q7ASDZFS6C011WUX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwazAg2UJvGAr+nx8R_xEbc4xV0ttPEWFKUD69u6xXaMhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaMzy=qeW5XYZ_txPaiYE27Oof+C5V1uRANvv-_cayOcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR00MB0107389F8FE73F140849A19996BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <2736ea21-69e6-83b1-3b59-377c032290b5@dcrocker.net> <CY1PR00MB01072F4EB32969888104C45196BE0@CY1PR00MB0107.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CAL0qLwbdNVwT-xiCmxyhSqKcp4-hCA1COHKh0wdYrYEekzZ=XA@mail.gmail.com> <3009defcc6dc9043823618dbc338460d@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwbvqABZGsm2Hp20y8wgvQTKvPn+EBKiS37eMrp+9NemjA@mail.gmail.com> <da2e49df90980fe460d1effd7734ef42@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwbA6Vjqpi5hGOtbpLV9FwgDO3VVA=Q5GgAU9F0qOsQCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <63a2bfc52a81eb569a0af5e1699390d9@xmail.mwn.de> <CAL0qLwZ42=GFDRm7H0qQ_7bczY8CPQaEuSUfgFEbO_Y5+5YvqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZ42=GFDRm7H0qQ_7bczY8CPQaEuSUfgFEbO_Y5+5YvqA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.144.6.86]
x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com, 9
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 11/17/2016 5:39:00 PM
x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ietf Dkim <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8097236286192256890=="
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

What Murray says makes sense. I don’t see the value of going forward with this approach given the negative impacts involved.

Mike

From: ietf-dkim [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:57 PM
To: Michael Storz
Cc: Ietf Dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Michael Storz <Michael.Storz@lrz.de<mailto:Michael.Storz@lrz.de>> wrote:

Thanks, I see. That means the recipient is bound to the message and an attacker cannot delete or change the new tags. Great solution, I like it, though I do not like the consequences when this extension will go into production.


You may not need to worry about that.  We've reached a point where I think we can legitimately say, "We took a serious look, and this is the best we could come up with.  It has some pretty ugly side effects.  Are you sure you can't just stop signing spam?"  And absent a compelling answer to that question, there's no need to roll this out even as an experiment.
-MSK

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email