Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #55, closing

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 25 January 2021 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 4BF083A1757 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:04:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 IeC_DjkNd7gT for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:04:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 C81BB3A1754 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:04:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611601467; bh=d1CN0igSYLJbz2qdkTeaqQ5bsCiP57/OtDxlFjU17wo=; l=1097; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=B6ZRkwtHa1FPXHwxAaTwHDEvlva2J7eATMpIeMQT3iOG+WUL6pkAqs8nUXKfw53zz aluFrDt2mINt0/OGZi3ChESTpFMCGpC2e1NxIgOpsTV0oh2Uu5GQbHNuC3RAcFf0jL EFSeFRQ6XPYwwG9urHeWmbX/PsnqXDNvc12+hom0qk4o3t4xDtdVgJc/PY3wO
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.00000000600F163B.000007A0; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:04:27 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
References: <20210125180128.D48E86C13032@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <dc04b0e1-cc19-9009-cef8-42f2ea863e7c@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:04:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210125180128.D48E86C13032@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2U76Bm63aKioLBp4cd0KQXkBN0w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #55, closing
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:04:31 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 19:01:28 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <63451726-124b-c24f-3be1-d6435e12c22e@tana.it> you write:
>>OLDER:
>>    These reports SHOULD include the "call-to-action" URI(s) from inside
>>    messages that failed to authenticate.
> 
> Well, you can guess where that came from.


Should we mention fraudster takedowns among the purpose of failure reports?


>>NEW:
>>    These reports SHOULD include as much of the message and message header
>>    as is reasonable to support the Domain Owner's investigation into what
>>    caused the message to fail authentication and track down the sender,
>>    unless privacy reasons suggest otherwise.
> 
> I'd strip it down more.
> 
>   These reports should include as much of the message header and body as
>   possible, consistent with the reporting party's privacy policies, to
>   enable the Domain Owner to diagnose the authentication failure.


committed.


> The "should" is deliberately lower case since it's not something you can
> describe mechanically.


Someone will question it anyway, I'd guess.


Best
Ale
--