Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Mon, 07 November 2016 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B163A129AE8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:31:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 UiNz8RuVsHCb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (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 B688D129AE3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o7so60932290ybb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:31:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DYbznCMPh17Yo1LyU0erk+cCpCw080RhobHx84GCTqA=; b=KdAHv6UFbz2bRP7aRb1ItyhgUTv8roJr2Dw1YQBWHj6ByiguL9tEahNgc/KWgM7B02 /TlMCVDd2IjIGMkY8yc6i4sgEyxL/YacI5lUs65QYN6GahMLtGkrbfqn/J1GF0/ciyEi gw+1suApNfMWMJP85knbfbLTDz+NZv8mR/cmb7Pp7LSTYFONEIv3oaGLw/pNY8Q373m6 9IwCdGEtMY1kGb1bkXlAVRozwCJtAIZMi65yTsywryMDSoQI7DQegWUTqeHbeEza04uP yT/Qeyea555Z0Wdqjv/WUGwQ+DFfvwqDVRYEVzGOF7SbS6CJa0rKkwlszJ2dCKkiZW9i n2AQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DYbznCMPh17Yo1LyU0erk+cCpCw080RhobHx84GCTqA=; b=QRf3asCJJSt847EtC0Nr5bctCFqeAMrDiIghAXIFZPA9JWTLS7sijOjGXXTUAO1gIf vrCPJwDSnByfcC/XZCpZoGpoFR2LA8SXUDmbr14nd5IZhbrnSnnxAnR6R650O1BuW3o0 iQ9cEra37fqsc5ZhO5+reUi0NMiJibAYGmS3RVjCBhh2/SGHXbJf13TYbHByqvhuao7t SQJBq/DM+gnF8PIHIcwVI2o7tzCCJKtiXmeOIulDhX9IpD0h0L6HMGmqIWhjvxX95D1P cr/NhfBQPLIHvpXKNsHJsQOyMfBZTXQuDkzxiZ7gN6Z7CqebW13d6ZO2TmRWxr6qMLzd DRMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveQt5tp2n+Ts9UHtqGzmw/jpCJtFpuEhQZcjgSspI9KMxegsMWAourEOI4Vvj/M5jun5BOB0oAaiQ+Upwc/
X-Received: by 10.37.164.104 with SMTP id f95mr8460887ybi.49.1478557868867; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:31:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.173.2 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:31:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <12932.1478470766@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <678C2FBA-A661-4556-A300-5C08562B5F8A@iii.ca> <29429.1478113235@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CABa8R6vHdt75NFKW3s6xOzLcq=jmVAHDPX0tjLRdGpYSTP2cYA@mail.gmail.com> <7301.1478274182@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <022001d23789$03154ae0$093fe0a0$@huitema.net> <12932.1478470766@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:31:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6s1t2P=2-k-pwuJxaEA=ja+F+5Y7-kx0nxJFJiLWBx0qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF Mailing Lists and DMARC
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c68e28e54db0540bd94b0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2FKhDacXJ_pFzz-HyXAUYYhFw-8>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:31:13 -0000

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
>     > On Friday, November 4, 2016 8:43 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: =20
>     >> There is another option: the people who live in a p=3Dreject policy
> =
>     > regime
>     >> could use a different email address for IETF participation.  It's
> not
>     >> =
>     > a
>     >> choice I like very much though.
>
>     > Been there, done that. It has quite a few nasty side effects. You
>     > easily = end up also sending work related e-mail from a non-corporate
>     > account, = for example when you forward an email from a WG list to a
>     > colleague at = work. That's against many companies' internal
>
> Yes, and yet, the legal council doesn't get involved in the p=reject
> policy decision?  The point here is to make the legal people wake up to
> what is going on.
>
> Creating corp.example.com or eng.example.com with a p=quarantine or other
> policy is not such huge decision for a place considering p=reject.


That assumes that having that hole isn't a problem.  Our experience has
been that if you leave something open, the attacks will follow.

Corporate employees are often targets of attacks.

Brandon