Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 27 December 2016 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 CF4C6129B17 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:47:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 w7EsK8SaWlo5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 A4AE4129B0A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uBRJmXDR003929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:48:33 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1482868113; bh=0fdPL2PcMUwrMuntvUzrjoWEdDWSzdXaU2AjXDlqKA4=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kaDDRSOTjqZBi6L76/9nWpBLZ7z+FzvBmrWEmq5/OZdxpYtXrJT3axQ3bjomcA7mD ysgKOzqktRrYMr56VkWzKpvQWm+sS2hrTCDIOHr3Np5TXWqupQbZd2KaFcwUwSqVGr MmIH7s3pYQjxECISnZ2u29GNNBv3kGBB/NbvWYzc=
Subject: Re: [IETF] DMARC methods in mailman
To: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20161226205249.rneaenhh5c2dcpz4@thunk.org> <20161227013401.11378.qmail@ary.lan> <03e401d25fe5$5f32a5f0$1d97f1d0$@huitema.net> <6ec78001-e522-70cc-6592-0228492b8f74@dcrocker.net> <000201d26070$248a9030$6d9fb090$@huitema.net> <49a2a831-a096-233a-3e48-0a87fa98e6ef@dcrocker.net> <0BE40471-1783-4C75-84FB-1CFEBC9CDB12@dukhovni.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <07a209a7-c529-c81a-bffa-19daa308bff3@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:47:05 -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: <0BE40471-1783-4C75-84FB-1CFEBC9CDB12@dukhovni.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/x2t7OsiGCjESa5iWAEPvht7esPg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:47:19 -0000

On 12/27/2016 11:02 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> If "Sender + From" are displayed as in Outlook, then it becomes reasonable
> to authenticate Sender when present, and not apply authentication policy
> to "From", since the message is not in fact *from* the author.  It is from
> the sender, (purportedly) on behalf of the author.
>
> It is rather implausible that phishers will want to present their messages
> this way (on behalf of), most users don't receive such email, and it will
> stand out as unexpected.  And users who still believe such messages to be
> legitimately *from* the purported author and fall victim to scams will fall
> for a myriad other misdirections.



All of the above is language cast in terms of end-users.  In the absence 
of extremely careful and constrained and informed reference, discussion 
of phishing needs to completely avoid references to end-users.

Really.  Just stop.  Everyone.

End-users are essentially irrelevant to the formalized detection and 
handling of phishing.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net