Re: DMARC and ietf.org

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 13 August 2016 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3516312D0A8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=B/3YPPQx; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=lr8DixV8
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 EwFFBeO_3GGn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:11:00 -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-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481F812B01B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 61701 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2016 15:10:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=f104.57af3883.k1608; bh=5vq6CAO2yvs081JHyctN6LjRXg0NhILRfxyK276wmXk=; b=B/3YPPQxTM+HyjpuJscOAHgVMh4CQEWw8dvzbNjKxyNBuUBP1h2GI1MHrDWXnRLBEF32R+2MTiDZoH16rcM9ZjKIN5YEkmeeNhtxwpoMYRujt+UZxcTGUWJBpFR00oFUYAZf8AGYaUnvdK1IYHqTNFOBjeorg6/hK4LZz+igpCAKj/1nK5KRm9c1N9VZG1HZsUcrC3YQQ/jN4aL56BpsksQoadCxJSwe3p+b16vNPAHqqrjukZyP0/gbNN527gAJ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=f104.57af3883.k1608; bh=5vq6CAO2yvs081JHyctN6LjRXg0NhILRfxyK276wmXk=; b=lr8DixV8pCWR7x7QNH5URVmYw9HtdIg24nU6Qk7HRpckTQSx4Vkhs15RJY8IwuMlY2IYiz1596gm/q/fnXi7bJxaq5DmNFz8qYAcHyjr05xIUBri1De2xACtoWVbuu17Pi2n9i+QNSIIPYGNQ2+BA+Mtbqo1mpJGz7nrprrjvMpG/Lak3s+xaN6qsTUs8cabyB9EC1G3B9SBBZ7b0UDnJIYwKH5PxqPMT6r1XJ4B0i7Dk0m90CZ/IgigKv3HvWWg
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 13 Aug 2016 15:10:59 -0000
Date: 13 Aug 2016 11:10:59 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608131101040.12562@ary.local>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: DMARC and ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20160813150004.GM10626@thunk.org>
References: <c87f5578-be42-5a4e-d979-f4166e2f2ef2@gmail.com> <20160813023957.5679.qmail@ary.lan> <CAPt1N1mO0xxfc3SghV1pcNUjOz9yKk-g=bgU+dWrgy2LWcwhBg@mail.gmail.com> <20160813150004.GM10626@thunk.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kL24edUthAOuHuwK3ZnpFkCXduI>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 13 Aug 2016 15:11:02 -0000

> The real problem is that in the absence of standardization, when the
> folks who implemented DMARC went ahead without doing something that
> didn't break all use cases, there's no consensus on what is the "good
> enough" solution.

DMARC was fine when it was used to protect high value company domains like 
paypal.com.  It became much less fine when AOL and Yahoo started using it 
to force the costs of their own security failures on third parties.

> ARC is supposed to be the magic bullet that will fix all of this, but
> this assumes someone is going to create ARC implementations for all of
> the common mailing list server implementations, and it's not obvious
> that this is going to be happening, either.

The Mailman people are certainly working on it, and I plan to work on 
Sympa.  What list software are you thinking of?

More to the point, ARC lets lists keep working they way they're supposed 
to.  All of the workarounds break stuff.  The most popular workaround, 
putting the list address on the From: line, makes it hard to tell who the 
message is from, close to impossible to reply to the author of the 
message*, and trains people to be phished.

> But it's a lot easier to blame the people who made the change which 
> broke things.....

Well, yes, they certainly deserve it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

* - anyone who says "you can put it in the Reply-To" has just shown that 
they don't understand the problem.