On Sun 07/Jun/2020 00:03:28 +0200 Jim Fenton wrote:
> On 6/6/20 2:42 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 5:26:08 PM EDT Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2020 2:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> If things like DMARC, SPF, and DKIM do nothing more than get abusers
>>>> to use different domains than they would otherwise, I think that's a
>>>> win.>>> The issue here is DMARC, not SPF or DKIM, since DMARC is the only
>>>> one of
>>> the 3 that restricts the choice of domain name.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, I'll ask you why you think the kind of change you
>>> cite is a win.
>> 1. I think the domain displayed to the end user matters. In my sample size
>> of 1, it matters to me. I know I'm not the average user, but independent of
>> the question of how many users it matters to, there are some.
> Same with me, but again I'm not the average user.
+1, but then we're mailing list subscribers (leaving aside this list's topic.)
>>
>> 2. When abusers use different domains to send mail, it adds more
>> information
>> for filters to work on, so even if this is all about filtering, that works
>> better too.
>
> But when abusers use different domains, the DMARC policy that applies is
> controlled by them and is therefore meaningless. And the reports, if any
> (probably none), are sent back to the attacker or their designate.
>
> Filtering might be done based on the DKIM signing domain or thesimilar
> envelope-from domain if SPF is used, but neither of those require DMARC.
The From: domain was chosen because that's the field that users can see. Now
we conjecture that users don't actually see it. Oh boy. Certainly, if the
From: domain is not visible we could filter on X-Filter-On-Me: and gracefully
avoid the mailing list problem.
On closer view, we seem to be discovering that the From: domain is obscured by
the display name. We always neglected the display name. Furthermore, by
letting the mailing list problem be dodged by creative From: rewriting, such as
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
we are granting full citizenship to devious display names. Some clients (e.g.
Thunderbird) can show only display name for people in the address book.[*] A
close, perhaps formally easier, subject is the IDN homograph attack.[†]
Would it make sense to ban, say, the use of the at sign (@) in display names?
Best
Ale
--
[*]
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/names-bug-no-email-addresses-are-displayed
[†] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
