IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 12 September 2014 22:16 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 093A01A008B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:43 -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 Hs-X9xxHKk7B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462FB1A004C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 10so1734358lbg.30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:39 -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=89tGfXzLQw9APiScjS9tiAQH9GbURqjg2WaEQyimQ68=; b=cs71kyo4FIFFWD6qU5HZ+8RrRUXBVbwvJI2OePwDanC8+fDzwnbd/omIoyJ5K8L11b uDIIiPS2ExPsnSdjW6J7aWn7OoVLTL5x1kWiNTfYcnK29yQygzglAVOTqZmBabcu34/4 qush1yd9SZ7YQ5wdEq9LmST2jLKia9MldKZuvKFC2UnfQKRDSbe4eTCy9puDqDr07Maf TKZiJALJCtTwd+ZfSIwvOksfUbk0PbdcrUZ/7Ox9mqMx55jz0Og517wxVJmnxkQtmiru kaJhBmCbQq9M+4lNaFMQOstPNGFBffEs+hQyCGhfRqdfR2Gk2FyFNmR1Y+oysl44IZzx 2Dqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.66 with SMTP id c2mr12317091lae.64.1410560199610; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.211.82 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54132CE9.1010907@dougbarton.us>
References: <20140911202058.3327.qmail@joyce.lan> <541208F6.1010302@dougbarton.us> <bb48b8f170074ddeb25cbb213f613892@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525E804C0@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CAAFsWK0os6Var4K9g+MLvhR5__4bGfH+kg-0uQh7ZE5V6A-fxg@mail.gmail.com> <54132CE9.1010907@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:16:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbT-o_iVfauZ02OQnvyU9m-ZY_k2RA=D1B1ehxbHCnyYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01493e46a1d59e0502e5a37a"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BDbzHVol09pElVigDItoj8vs7qk
Cc: "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 22:16:43 -0000

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:

> On 9/12/14 10:20 AM, Wei Chuang wrote:
>
>> I also just wanted to bring another high level idea to the table- rather
>> than discuss which work arounds to mandate (and all have problems), why
>> not revisit the authentication methods?  In particular the current DKIM
>> method, while very powerful in the security sense, is very restrictive.
>>
>
> Because the large mail vendors have already spoken, and they like the way
> that SPF/DKIM/DMARC work. Spending more time talking about how we think
> they SHOULD work is wasted effort.
>

What's "the current DKIM method" and how is it restrictive?

The large mail vendors are participating in these discussions, or at least
observing them, so if we have something to say to them that's different
from "go back to the way it was before", I believe it'll get heard.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email