Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 15 July 2014 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C6B1F1B28BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.762
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 XtUuXEgQDujX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD301B28BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 94297 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2014 15:44:42 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Jul 2014 15:44:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12c9d.53c54c69.k1407; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=/bDxUG1eVuAMJUG4/hX5VEZ4ntEU44fY/x99ED+pTo0=; b=N/AfsBdB3TwmskNbTFnlmpwpbW3vb6rwVoTSfM1yuBA5RygjprVvBYfdayqCLQS+pMZqalv2cEtm6yG3DtfTtJpYaWPy69xIdCWEv33L7BCFDV+HH59UtQVr9c59VfvCpGIlHhDu1b7zUw8Pg7VDXe4tL0boNyqAT0LCKZo/YwX3IXCGJ3Cqolv7yW+3oisGgaYuZFotFkXl3yRI7WRF7MKodS/GHHueMZkZY9dnrsFbqW6AQGOOPpFDYrElBpCB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=12c9d.53c54c69.k1407; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=/bDxUG1eVuAMJUG4/hX5VEZ4ntEU44fY/x99ED+pTo0=; b=nXqqzcCxxwfxLRmxd1xtQZrrjW6GBggxjAZ26xjeiYzoX3sGDedR/5lacJTd4IG1km7pYNI2XVUcEjIrR5h4FU82rM/xpEeV+x1WF9WOVrq5jXMYpdmt6wU8T95YAtiry1tDHp7DM4F1MQ/mtXkCHmWURwSQIeQVWb1Jp9MdElszbLedlDINqsyJqT8+Jl5deAXkLOxJn21eICuNF5Qh1CKQ3WtyiEUBLmFiE9Zs0bVG+nwAO+PKKC3yMoZD8cLk
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:44:18 -0000
Message-ID: <20140715154418.76956.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
In-Reply-To: <20140715001549.GG2595@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9Of_xb8RNVP2PABx149Ajw9NeKQ
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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:44:47 -0000

> Some MUAs already expose "Sender != From" by displaying
>"From <sender> on behalf of <author>".  This needs to become standard
>MUA behaviour.

Perhaps not.  This is the "punt security policy to Grandma" model.  A
more extreme version is the proposal to show signed and unsigned parts
of messages in different colors.

It would have been nice if users and MUAs had done this all along and
there were widely understood conventions (as opposed to well
documented but not well understood) conventions for using Sender:
headers.  But there aren't.  The most popular MUA that shows the
sender is Outlook, and people I know just find it confusing.

You and I probably have the background to make useful decisions from
various combinations of sender and author.  But I don't see any reason
to believe that non-technical users (in my case, Grandma is my wife's
74 year old mother) do.

R's,
John