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

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Sat, 20 September 2014 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 2C0201A895B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 QHrxfKUJ_tNl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6476C1A03A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with SMTP id s8KAl6e7019996 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:47:06 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: dmarc damage, was gmail users read on... [bozo subtopic]
Message-ID: <20140920104706.GA14908@gsp.org>
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> <CAL0qLwbT-o_iVfauZ02OQnvyU9m-ZY_k2RA=D1B1ehxbHCnyYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAFsWK1YHS0F3SuxOgUmJ+PtQw-0+zWEb1XPi52WnyEHet-UTg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAFsWK1YHS0F3SuxOgUmJ+PtQw-0+zWEb1XPi52WnyEHet-UTg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XCMS3n1Ba7hTkHauZc5HlmRvK5Y
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: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:47:22 -0000

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:36:02AM -0700, Wei Chuang wrote:
> I doubt my personal view are going to change any opinions here, but if you
> could put yourselves in the mindset of the engineers trying to fight
> phishing attacks at large scale that were damaging the reputation of their
> service you might see things differently.

Those engineers should focus first on the abuse that's coming *from*
or supported by their own operations, not on the abuse directed at them.
In the case of some of the providers involved in the DMARC debacle,
they've spent many years studiously pretending that the problem is external
when in fact much of it is internal and when they've tried their
very best to block, ignore or discard problem reports concerning it.

---rsk