Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua reports?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 1305212008F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=WUfX3xwI; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KHVuQ0vg
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 eOzKerrZy4-d for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 A16E412007A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 63052 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2019 20:24:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f64a.5d49e1f7.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=H2mNWYOczd6cLvEgP7ypKWgFVUIYoxRZssCi40O6VZg=; b=WUfX3xwINIAgaJPK1D5kztbIW+Z6yXqWuPqKuS2C4nezP0fxUU9mwHM+Hyp9TpDyRaArLSK6JPzP7MWGh+luExy6+fP9M6MaMhMn5wTcnSzp97UK567RdM+l7jwr4u5m91B3iP3wsZ2GgKt+HyHHmkGCpH2//YVzYyWPnsv8QjO2Kyr2ju9J7mZKq/vinXEqcbjW/oGLK7KYN4JXC0azgBeQpyvwTtvIXDlBkf9uitJ0d6fxrcHScphOTjt56A9n
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f64a.5d49e1f7.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=H2mNWYOczd6cLvEgP7ypKWgFVUIYoxRZssCi40O6VZg=; b=KHVuQ0vgQHdui8e2IJeXv3zyv0wHavlUBQKrV97goPqQVwob+qRkH5GdsOlPgDrtLsIJMzv/CeNwy4sAEB5ntEG6E+B+dvffH/ldm1u6v2OYzgMxybaxlDz0wOFP9R9gz4kEW5mBYCtch9KDO+2xZaI/zaHrgOaz2BXJYi2wLTvTgiJSmasS+ZValrrm9gceyfWw6LfyWbPIo5Q2Codg7eU+Q5lTU1Zf8BEyBYCFbbsLFPMKXHBS+zBghdT74pEe
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 06 Aug 2019 20:24:23 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 26DB77B426F; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 6 Aug 2019 16:24:22 -0400
Message-Id: <20190806202423.26DB77B426F@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: freddie@leemankuiper.nl
In-Reply-To: <009c01d54c69$39745520$ac5cff60$@leemankuiper.nl>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3Ok2bQC6Dy_MmELD-unBZaQQZgg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua reports?
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:24:26 -0000

In article <009c01d54c69$39745520$ac5cff60$@leemankuiper.nl>; you write:
>I've noticed that, even though RFC7489 appendix C states that the
>'envelope_from' element has a minOccurs of '1', this element is missing
>quite frequently. 

It's not missing, it's empty.  That's not the same thing.

R's,
John