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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 21:24 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 AF2A21A02EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:40 -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 H40eQ-gAJzi7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 365CC1A02D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x48so3635692wes.17 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:37 -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=Tx+CsajlgPRubfw8FZDsyd/ziU5ZYxBZG7CQs00vuxs=; b=LkrcpBftZbwVC13tVP0t/5xV/x5uPjk1fC6w4Sc4lWuP5Xnz2KX5d5Zsm9yqbgiDdj mY0I0sWbM32d5AOTo/oN6cufdKOqpOemJxpw0lnXz91YT5cZh3/YuYHbT6sIOVVE9pPy IZmCGOTL4RRldlWi42SbZQOelH1UFBCppbtTiwupkkxTUtQ7ZjV022MAFysDiPtwGPlo bXdjSWx5Yn8vDmwKzTDnlocZXXWhuANGI6qYBnBoxUUYgu43UJjBmwKnszqrN6zuedA/ n4JG+U/DY+iNwlAvaG+Pk+b6x9IW1HJMdoeLVd0VSrDLtN/mfHUgf7IFDhUxDM3MDGzw 3whw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.4 with SMTP id dc4mr170278wjc.32.1405632277668; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.10.99 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140717195712.11D7B1ADAE@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <6C10A695-8F29-4D94-8CF5-FAA0E975A33E@gmail.com> <20140717195712.11D7B1ADAE@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:24:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYZPO9L9e7MHA6zP5vcTbQEJmwCSonLdMeQiOw4CUoiFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: mrex@sap.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d115e986a6404fe6a4446"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c9y6IX9xmnzD8QxuvjUhHyHmnVk
Cc: ietf <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: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:24:40 -0000

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> wrote:

> Only the most clueless MUA programmers got this wrong in the first place.
>

Isn't that most of them?


> From a probability standpoint, now counting on those to (a) take the
> blame and (b) get it right this time may be somewhat optimistic.
>

I rather agree there.


> The main problem that I have is DMARC, is that the approach is
> technically and morally wrong, and legally prohibited (=criminal)
> in properly civilized countries.
>

Could you elaborate on why to the two "wrong" assertions?


> A better approach would be for the final MTA to perform DMARC (DNS) lookups
> and prepend the results as new, standardized header lines to the message,
> and have the MUA process these new header lines and **suppress** displaying
> of the "rfc5322-From:" for messages that are supposed to verify but don't.
>

The base draft supports the header lines suggestion.  We're arguing in
another thread about whether requiring specific MUA behavior in the face of
a negative evaluation is a useful thing to pursue in an IETF document.


> And DMARC reporting needs to be killed.
>

Could you elaborate on why?  I only ask because some operators think the
reporting is actually the more valuable thing DMARC has to offer, and you
seem to have different information.

-MSK