IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is there any recommendation to send DMARC message-specific failure reports FROM:<> ?

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> Sun, 26 May 2019 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1EE12006D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 22:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tnetconsulting.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 pFc-PFlAN-xg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 22:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe26:8849]) (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 C38F312008C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 22:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id x4Q5Kmic030976 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 May 2019 00:20:50 -0500
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v0.1.0 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net x4Q5Kmic030976
Authentication-Results: tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net; arc=none header.d=tnetconsulting.net
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2015; t=1558848050; cv=none; b=L9ODoKWEoWErbLElCMF0K5aEsGQm4dwB3PfZzLr9/juDsPJs2aQuAbMU9VerZ4xkgG3jqw/cFKDxLzEPXfkeioUxECjrvIngclQAL9Kz5ZaFqx98KIxxBa7FmSc7pHmwNvdRTF+DDs+9BnesvyUrX/JLFHQ0g5CvrWJa0IVIqK4=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2015; t=1558848050; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lJchDzhTnTd5Wg51Hw9U3nLuxr6DftwhvXvSQPWsEcg=; h=DKIM-Signature:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=547kuSd5J/m4nQASXaFVd1NQDh2P/xxu/3kZn7w8CEd13DOghodydWYPaWB6o+D4yVXXtrHcDcVrDemDOG1ZKtxorkjuU5LDSKpKTAvq/6ROMIAmzyD0TVDuWF0L56fk5pCi0RURwYMlcRkwunH4Ep93rzM25ilrCN5+43Z04E4=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net; none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tnetconsulting.net; s=2019; t=1558848050; bh=lJchDzhTnTd5Wg51Hw9U3nLuxr6DftwhvXvSQPWsEcg=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Disposition: Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To: User-Agent; b=uO/Gp0k3aEPtRHjQSHWgHKyA2TvnHam2AlirDT3CpPHuuX2yAuNZwgA3KJU0L4dbG oFf4aQushA4ctsluRcw/n4gPgY2i7VAIU4tXEwhiwi2uy2NVkWa9QT8aBj36mvgZbH OfA9FMd5o360PTLwa6XOTekFHlRbqSmo8sv9Cr2o=
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20190525183556.Horde.zvg1bNsYbvs_enKZPKjlhVV@webmail.aegee.org> <20190525215318.1580620149E52F@ary.qy> <20190526050958.Horde.6VaAxRZKGLqyeJ4Uov0vrXR@webmail.aegee.org>
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <26760626-b3f2-b8cd-f31f-d78b487db35c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 23:20:50 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190526050958.Horde.6VaAxRZKGLqyeJ4Uov0vrXR@webmail.aegee.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms070508030104030305000803"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0EP_j-CSIHHrQMRK-eb-DK1P3J8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is there any recommendation to send DMARC message-specific failure reports FROM:<> ?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 05:20:55 -0000

On 5/25/19 11:09 PM, Dilyan Palauzov wrote:
> Emails to postmaster@modernwebsite.pl are answered with “Undelivered 
> Mail Returned to Sender”.  The answers do not align to the DMARC policy 
> reject, so a new message-specific failure repot is sent.

Are the reports that you are sending being accepted at SMTP time and 
then bounced after the fact?

That sounds like (what I think is) a misconfiguration on their end.

As such, I'm less inclined to think that modifying DMARC is the proper 
thing.  Especially if this is a rare occurrence (as in a very select 
candidate).



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email