Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies

"Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl> Wed, 31 July 2019 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
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 8EA21120297 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:42:17 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=leemankuiper.nl
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 eo-acmH0mboC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl (srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl [87.239.9.190]) (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 37181120227 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leemankuiper.nl; s=mta1; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=C9RPYKL+UY1M+1VhcuFkFoGfkGepV84RQ8gvxRa/H6I=; b=KYO8IdOeEOSQ7OCdy8FCttuW2 pQNFnSixO7fHheE7ELu+ofkWQo2jJ+w5+InEZ96l5v8UhGv29hjWjX/hTe/bFfdyyLRToe0McWnUC bq8MF/yMGprHir8YV6kw5NNDH5frvdIxAFSN8lfMagbXhvqW2IirWBvYrIhXa57m98MiXFuWDacLT esqn0iqhMZdRiDwvzQ0p29pj93lWIwWJLQw+XCUFeLjI7dhdjaG5MUtE1kXr9troouEy3uU5P+169 CGpFa/Q6c0n4QUndjbFCT+XoeI6rYd29Y/FdmsaV9kQ++iaNj9mVMsEoVWr3CeCIl4zdrsfVC1Ahi +6wUTPNWA==;
Received: from 83-83-140-171.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([83.83.140.171] helo=LAPC01) by srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>) id 1hsqk0-0006r3-2x for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:42:12 +0200
From: "Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
To: <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <008401d54784$f8300750$e89015f0$@leemankuiper.nl> <CABuGu1p3N+esAB=qz_1D1m6SWjEMP_JiKU1o0K6uLne-24qxRA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1p3N+esAB=qz_1D1m6SWjEMP_JiKU1o0K6uLne-24qxRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <014c01d547b6$85c30c30$91492490$@leemankuiper.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_014D_01D547C7.494C9F80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQEwMtDJj/TREh0OevgSswABly9FJAHSL2GIqCB13dA=
Content-Language: nl
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
X-Authenticated-Id: info@leemankuiper.nl
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2_CKOT0FYnib90sD9L2uUzA5yC0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:42:18 -0000

Thanks Kurt, I’ve made the adjustments to the document.

 

--Freddie Leeman

 

Van: Kurt Andersen (b) [mailto:kboth@drkurt.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 31 juli 2019 17:00
Aan: Freddie Leeman <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
CC: dmarc@ietf.org
Onderwerp: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies

 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:47 AM Freddie Leeman <freddie=40leemankuiper.nl@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40leemankuiper.nl@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote:

I’ve been processing millions of DMARC aggregate reports from a lot of different organizations, and have been trying to make sense of them for quite some time now. I’ve noticed that most of them, even those from large parties like Google and Yahoo!, fail to follow the DMARC RFC guidelines (Appendix C.  DMARC XML Schema). I’ve written a blog about this that can be found here: https://www.uriports.com/blog/dmarc-reports-ietf-rfc-compliance/

 

The bottom line is that the RFC 7489 Appendix C is a mess and contradicts itself numerous times in both schema and comments. I think it’s important to be clearer and stricter about the xml elements and their values. Too much of this section is open to interpretation.

 

Freddie,

 

Thanks for your observations - would you mind proposing concrete language to replace Appendix C? Speaking from experience, it can be helpful to be able to do in-place comments/markup so I've posted http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema - please make any adjustments in "Suggest" mode or comments you feel appropriate. The invitation extends to all members of this group. 

 

--Kurt Andersen