IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 12 September 2014 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554FB1A008B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 xcoimpraQVrH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1D3C1A004C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b8so1788523lan.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=euUKBS7GfZLPA9RltDlrFPRGwubMQIgnZdqcYPZiICY=; b=sB0IIedNkmNrEeAjvMjBobY6mtc+A00P9ZMP5Z9az0x7mH5KNwMC4oQ9WIoVaod8SI 8tTa+8SOLWgWEx7g652dokDaLWOeTRH9PCXNeamAyJ0ZFlOa5ErpXd1fAtz1QV+q05Dd kezJdbTtpQWAUtjp+K98hWpiRHIXz4uu/qbmqfA/Sir9QTOoSxvnCt0kzfhJ80vWz/iW 0EHbPiBQ93qotEPb3JgkhbukhqyYPPnRWoaDvDvYYJpp39YaVRR5LcjFh78Keb6752KU zgmpgkcx++t1E6L93FPx1b3bb3QGGYmr3RknC9ZnX8H/RZpz8zuZ61FE/FTYmQEQoOaR iRmg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.63.71 with SMTP id e7mr11200176lbs.89.1410560414697; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.211.82 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140912201738.GF16660@localhost>
References: <20140911202058.3327.qmail@joyce.lan> <541208F6.1010302@dougbarton.us> <bb48b8f170074ddeb25cbb213f613892@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525E804C0@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <20140912201738.GF16660@localhost>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:20:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYJ+vguJt-fVs1zr79N4dz7w7PCxwHf6kSiUjyhdYJ6cA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3ee6273cf410502e5b0dd"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9D5WwRI0RjoFk_sq5WhEJ902_iY
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:20:18 -0000

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:35:19PM +0000, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> > > The big change with DMARC is a deprecation of the Sender/From
> > > differentiation, effectively requiring that these two will be the
> same. It
> > > seems that big systems have voted that the differentiation causes more
> > > harm (spam, phish) than good (remailers).
>

That's curious.  Maybe I'm not understanding, but:

DMARC doesn't check Sender, so I don't see how this is relevant.  Or do you
mean that what one would now put in Sender is required to be in From?

The cases in which only the LHS differs are rather uninteresting though;
> Christian H. is quite right.  We've taken a step backwards.


Maybe in some ways that's true.  On the other hand, if almost nothing ever
checked Sender to begin with, and a lot of things that "should" have
generated it didn't, what practical difference does it make?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email