What operational problem are we solving here? Absent evidence of a problem and strong consensus on the solution, let's close these tickets and move on.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:10 AM Douglas Foster < [email protected]> wrote: > Since the status quo is unauthenticated, I wonder if adding a signing > requirement will help. > Will recipients discad unsigned messages, or accept whatever is available > to maximize their information capture? I suspect they will conrinye to > accept everything. > > I think we would need an identified threat before recipients would be > motivated to discard. > > But what about John's problems with receiving reports that should not have > gone to him? I did not understand the root cause, but I would hope there > is something that can be done. Would signing help receiving sites, those > with less sophistication than he has, be able to sort out noise more > effectively? > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 11:51 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 1/25/21 8:44 AM, Todd Herr wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:18 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> The main thing I've learned over the years of dealing with security is >>> to not underestimate what a motivated attacker can do. Your imagination is >>> not the same as their imagination. Closing #98 in particular is absolutely >>> ridiculous: the report should already have a DKIM signature or SPF so it's >>> just a matter of making sure its valid. Why would you *not* want to insure >>> that? The amount of justification for *not* having the receiver >>> authenticate it is a mountain. The amount of effort to authenticate it is >>> trivial for mail. Levine's dismissal of security concerns because he has >>> anecdotal "evidence" from a backwater domain carries no weight at all. >>> >> >> That's all well and good, but you haven't answered the question I asked. >> >> What threats do you have in mind? Put another way, how do you envision an >> attacker exploiting the lack of authentication in a DMARC report to his or >> her gain? >> >> No, sorry, the onus is on the people who don't think it can be gamed. A >> bald assertion that it can't be gamed is very unconvincing. You need to lay >> out a miles long case for why it cannot be gamed. And to what end? #98 has >> a simple piece of text that should be added to DMARC to eliminate the >> possibility of forgery. You'd need a 10 page threat I-D to explain why it's >> not necessary. What is the point of that? For email, it's trivial to >> prevent forgeries. Why would anybody argue against that? >> >> Mike >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
