Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two new fields in aggregate reports

Dotzero <> Fri, 25 October 2019 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A079120817 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id obhY6zFYctb1 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BED3120043 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l10so3362750wrb.2 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vJMBmZxnB4jSZB2ypbpBFs0m7aATSnE21zkqgL/0uEE=; b=fzowTi/GYPtfQQQuUj74Kf4ItFKBdAf9j56IkYHAOh0/SbE1OXzKYBifvlxmXg9Ggk QLaDK7rWb9U6pMIvN03JK/xyk/LFD2VQaP40Yl42JjudRDTnqAkBQ+JbZevKD0KD7tiY mOxXfDVmzyJm2bO88CDXdPTIfT1hoIQ6ZFXRbeTFOHikMPfrNnp5hEDJ4mejVlCCefMA AIZ6xs08YjmKSY/UtyC0KgVzkgLYzLa7cH25eNV8zudvZkwrDDY2ss6cY21Z8XU8YlJt aXn3nJ9e7J4Gl/d7BDVNn/0ialM5sj1akHDU+OzwIINP0vEe7U6FCpxvX0Rx2jCzlt6N nMLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vJMBmZxnB4jSZB2ypbpBFs0m7aATSnE21zkqgL/0uEE=; b=Iy++kxfl3DaTe3TUaH+HaT4l3Jai5yV+j322ZAeTMjb4BpZWzoeFnn0mTkf83niBt8 xdiyC6Xgqd35kIQkocM62y72IUi3e3JdsFAphIL5RK7V/Ojec21QG2GALc6PvX+o+lgi FC9xA47GlzuBLlSwbcVFk6NocBsyYDmVsGa/7Eetrt1ni/87qeazGcEux6zEG/jhg6a+ 2IMdL1EzIJhoDt6hPixBmjf88zbUjeivqYo3mIbkgVcMjFaz+TopvP/VFM9vPLJIWDkg pTLQhP3mQ5Xu+1U+StAFgzRUnixzIZHWsU8ovI0ISf3kAa1Gce7pfSdRX7XCclSsT5l/ 2J5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVmisWxsynTGeXCCiSUE/MUKzPXgJtRzNjsiwtpjDSb1txAkVEn OIZoqnzsoOH3IjEIHbyLDsjISSjdFmc7uRegWj0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwE6RkqzBczczk8EBm9XSS700zT5j1L/wBhksTchT1zzTXtoFCU0Ya/gz4ksOsCvzs3xPThXeMhVXiEFLt6GM0=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e7c9:: with SMTP id e9mr4136778wrn.261.1572026611284; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20191025174918.E8CAFD66F4D@ary.qy> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:03:19 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Seth Blank <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be3e890595bff758"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two new fields in aggregate reports
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:03:35 -0000

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:53 PM Seth Blank <seth=> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:49 AM John Levine <> wrote:
>> As far as I know, the point of DMARC reports is to help domain owners
>> understand who is sending mail that purports to be from them.  In a
>> large organization it can be remarkably hard to track down every mail
>> server in every department or every subcontractor that might be sending
>> real mail with the domain in the From: header.
>> The domain owners use the reports to do things like update SPF records
>> to include all of the sending hosts, update server configs to add DKIM
>> signatures, or to fix servers that are adding invalid signatures, and
>> often to shut rogue servers down that shouldn't have been sending mail
>> in the first place.
>> I can't see how spam scores would be of any use for any of these tasks.
> +1000
> The point of DMARC reports is to understand what is not authenticating in
> an aligned fashion, so that you can get those mailstreams authenticating
> properly and verify things are now correct. Spam, nor insight into receiver
> mechanisms to combat spam (which change daily, per Brandon), is out of
> scope of DMARC reporting.
> Seth
Absolutely agree with the sentiments expressed by John and Seth.

Michael Hammer