Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ratchets - Disallow PCT 1-99

Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com> Fri, 16 July 2021 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <todd.herr@valimail.com>
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 A53AE3A37BC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 06:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 k_r86mVOUSOC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7AC3A37B6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id r125so8718753qkf.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+RfzO71FEzqA7YRm8Ay9qgRsGj5SN3RxVS4ps11d+N8=; b=TEb+9Hzd3SR85DaIg6YOtsvYoDFsey5zEPHSE7Ozdj++5vQGrvAFS1jGsyi35gHk5I HgDoO8URAxdirpqDQAR2rnHJgnWDun0rCQnW4pmJO7Vm1S94V+OfvdSshRzjVqp8F3cX sOykmf2FY0OobN7vSf7KU76y/bN4hEbjvLxXcxhWfDWKdFKgHiKxn/kXbyB0ujOaUygq RpbVjRaFQc6NlNrrWda31nrJVnBgXXK2q5OLqYWAgYXoAT5M5Bn5l3TWnlKqkeEBUrXc 8Wq2gSpdB0XxZ5Up3swVFB5SPCyv/+ptbT31DBKbIil4WWwQOehRmQgkxCnPAVe4K4CE 6Z7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+RfzO71FEzqA7YRm8Ay9qgRsGj5SN3RxVS4ps11d+N8=; b=ASlMs06DCqDI6RJhePgbLYF2ycT08wBcV0iJjM2oacPZiRI8JOlDjhWZxrWc3uXnL/ h14rgY9yXdqmjxHwNpquJkrfhu6xKqBaDzJG+ttJFWw9GpnJERWPbpkxS6n4y4eK1aWr +zALVM04yIRAhtWqeu+R8oxDF/H5ayX5Fd3w2eLlQb0C0tWj+CwerTOHFiSA9QpQ3zGm 0TBb5qqz3pllP2Rzdi4tH+HLW6OpKEnF7U/LynrrtN4MFJBqmNBNoQQ3RTZQNXLBaULO 9oL1IJRpFLIvsKkHOGv3ctBDkF9ch6zf6iAV51AzMKI5kaPVT9gIHcvpbhMVsakJ/wGU Z7xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jhL339vj8ysq80BVRIVDBuOk0Cpio2AlGjJhjdRcoeqSIYvEm SkBaZZmhF6eLXhMgjA9UARtYN1mkgviiA8FFmMQLYg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJVvL7R1tUBk2NxiSDp2qwVttLfVNPYEpwTiBFnQ71JafLL/uXOZOS04i1jWz4ddjEiyHWxo23w6oZB0Vh5Wc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:244c:: with SMTP id h12mr9702529qkn.249.1626443091643; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHej_8=yvgXP2WgHayhGU2Hg2E0RcNgZBFjfw1cM-qKWkTG-+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfys9cwTskjjdeJ14Y-wDBuqLseDEEiNvwC9BonLAwMyVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8mTF7DFwDiCHBq_mK40E+vuFS6iB+MQ3Co3pS=ZdqXkcg@mail.gmail.com> <f45a2fb6-c907-feb9-fedd-4573f9685c0c@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <f45a2fb6-c907-feb9-fedd-4573f9685c0c@tana.it>
From: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:44:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHej_8=-jUnQAs9yqhnC5-kOvKBWXL4DjHcsu=at-RF0VYxCtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b99ff805c73dca4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1ts9k9MD_yHW1yOWa4Au-LPMB-4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ratchets - Disallow PCT 1-99
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: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:45:01 -0000

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 5:32 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Tue 13/Jul/2021 20:09:45 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:03 AM Douglas Foster wrote:
> >
> >
> > draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02 instead starts with this text:
> >
> >     pct:  (plain-text integer between 0 and 100, inclusive; OPTIONAL;
> >        default is 100).  For the RFC5322.From domain to which the DMARC
> >        record applies, the "pct" tag is the percentage of messages
> >        producing a DMARC result of "fail" to which the Domain Owner
> >        wishes its preferred handling policy be applied.
> >
> > Since the concept of applying DMARC policy to messages that produce a
> DMARC
> > result of "pass" doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to claim that "pct"
> > applies to the entire mailstream.
>
>
> Why not?  I'd say that a DMARC filter takes no action when dmarc=pass
> (except
> for setting Authentication-Results: and feedback data).  The policy
> requests
> noop on pass, and it is applied indeed.
>
>
I will continue to maintain that it makes no sense to talk about the
concept of applying DMARC policy to messages which pass DMARC validation
checks, especially in the context of the 'pct' tag.

In RFC 7489, the definitions of "quarantine" and "reject" both speak of
their application in terms of "email that fails the DMARC mechanism check".

So, for a DMARC record such as this:

_dmarc.foo.com IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=X; rua=...."


I assert that the domain owner is requesting that X percent of the messages
that fail the DMARC mechanism check be subjected to the "quarantine"
policy.

To assert that the domain owner is instead asking only that DMARC
validation checks be performed on X percent of the messages runs the very
real risk of the pct mechanism being even less useful as a ratchet,
especially when X is small, because that X% of the total mailstream might
not contain any DMARC failures.

It occurs to me now that something like the following is considered a valid
DMARC record, and we should probably fix that:

_dmarc.foo.com IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=25; rua=...."


The fix would be to describe the 'pct' tag as only valid with p= quarantine
or reject, because "p=none, pct=X" is just a nonsensical way of writing
"p=none; pct=100", because you're going to get "none" on all failures
regardless.


> > Next, draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-02 contains a substantial rewrite of the
> > Message Sampling section (now section 6.7.4) that goes to great lengths
> to
> > attempt to show that the desired pct value really can't be counted on to
> be
> > applied as asked for, and what might actually happen could vary widely
> from
> > what's desired.
>
>
> I find that section excessively long and difficult.  It doesn't mention
> the key
> point that the percentage is more and more exact as the number of (failed)
> messages grows.  Indeed, pct=20 doesn't say that the policy should apply
> to one
> of /the first five/ messages.
>
>
Please suggest alternate text.

>
>
> The last paragraph of Section 6.7.4.2 seems to say that pct affects
> reporting:
>
>     *  "0" - A request that zero percent of messages producing a DMARC
>        "fail" result have the specified policy applied.  While this is
>        seemingly a non-sensical request, this value has been given
>        special meaning by some mailbox providers when combined with
>        certain "p=" values to alter DMARC processing and/or reporting for
>        the domain publishing such a policy.
>
> I'd remove "and/or reporting".
>
>
This section is an attempt to discuss the need for one to have a policy of
"p=quarantine; pct=0" to get accurate reporting from Google in the past,
and was mentioned during the last interim -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-dmarc-01-202105270900/

Please suggest alternate text.

-- 

*Todd Herr* | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem
*e:* todd.herr@valimail.com
*m:* 703.220.4153

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.