Re: [ietf-smtp] Email explained from first principles

Kaspar Etter <> Thu, 27 May 2021 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1898B3A0B12 for <>; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53S2Ec9tAGF1 for <>; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B4343A0B09 for <>; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF7F1E0004; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:15:17 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gm1; t=1622135718; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iQv1WAT+lRNmYCNdXpGsYm2KGjdvqLULPMssXLHmjXI=; b=MAaPZxW4pFwmDJbfK+eywkkFo+4Febda9xK3g3Xo2OuZnfgNlWpw/MSXIKmnMVv9WNEQ0/ Kw0N1oDTBAfcVO1+PCZo87sRzr4aiEMipbsYfLq1GgsFicDKvXuCQ2tevUFsdh+QH+AaSy xSMx/5RXebha054GmzetT70SyOeDb178KE33ZknHGQ6wm8/x5LJBtlSIgemkmeY6BgdvMC thGjeoBI+XYGDzc7GpM5Kf2LJC7pswHRVySaTVDxBxPARIFbLv5mejvLm76+XXt3dosvj0 MgAE3nPrpw9iNxGOORmsvcX2j81FfpkTob7RK8uQf3vNexUuqBACszal2+M0rg==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Kaspar Etter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:15:16 +0200
Cc: IETF SMTP Mailing List <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20210524140315.991E3890E35@ary.qy> <> <>
To: John R Levine <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Email explained from first principles
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 17:15:28 -0000

On 27 May 2021, at 18:23, John R Levine <> wrote:
> We've spent a decade with people insisting that the entire e-mail world has to change the way it works to conform to the lastest FUSSP. 

Why is domain authentication framed as a spam prevention technique? Any messaging service which is popular, open, and free will have spam. Spam is a problem of quantity: You just have to bring down the amount of unsolicited messages to a bearable level, be it with domain or IP reputation, challenge-response mechanisms, or proof of work. Phishing, on the other hand, is a problem of quality: A single successful attack can do immense harm. It’s not just large organizations which are being impersonated. A popular scam is to impersonate the victim themself, claiming that their account has been compromised and blackmailing them into paying a ransom.

Just because some people will always fall for scams doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce the number of victims. Otherwise, cars wouldn’t need safety measures because some people will always die in car accidents. Priming plays a huge role in human psychology and there’s a lot that mail clients could do in this regard: Separate messages from unknown senders, don’t display the display name of unknown senders, warn users when they click on links from unknown senders, warn users if a previously authenticated sender could not be authenticated, etc.

> They understand that DMARC's limitations cause a lot of gratuitous pain for their users who've been using mailing lists for a long time.  

I fully understand this pain and respect the motivation behind ARC, but you cannot have (strict) domain authentication and message rewriting. I want the former and don’t care about the latter. Maybe the solution will be that people use two different addresses: One with domain authentication enabled for direct conversations and one without domain authentication for mailing lists.