Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 27 December 2016 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80CE1294CF for <>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:13:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.792
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQ9ZHWBx_7aj for <>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B368A129476 for <>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uBRFEwBI019981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:15:00 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1482851702; bh=hw7OB7WlOYe5lELLWMbQiqTJktNDFUdDEe6AU3o5kKk=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Yja/OpjQY8YCjZWCsKF1cqkFj/ZRp6OOhmOnYvx6VUbHM1umF5tz/YAN7IvEAzuYy jN3erWToExDoHx9Nz7O8yBvZmPjyViTqEfV35OxmEo5qRcUKb2C05AOeEyFQ+IFUX8 WfptFdFXq5MgWViwpATkfKveR33wtqcMcY+jM1iM=
Subject: Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman
To: Christian Huitema <>, "'John Levine'" <>,
References: <> <20161227013401.11378.qmail@ary.lan> <03e401d25fe5$5f32a5f0$1d97f1d0$>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:13:30 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <03e401d25fe5$5f32a5f0$1d97f1d0$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:13:56 -0000

On 12/26/2016 6:03 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> But your mail and many comments on this lists point to the huge responsibility of the MUA with respect to phishing. Phishing is about duping the user by displaying misleading information. The effective defenses have to rely on proper user interface design,

Unfortunately, this is mostly /not/ true.

The actual experience, both in field work and usability research, is 
that UI design does not affect user processing of phishing very much. 
Neither design nor user training have much effect.

Hence most effective phishing protection is in the filtering engine(s) 
below the UI.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking