IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate Reports

Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net> Tue, 04 June 2019 07:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@eudaemon.net>
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 E94971200CE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eudaemon.net
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 09fpyqyUyFVP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc35.google.com (mail-yw1-xc35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) (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 972BD12006A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id t2so646310ywe.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eudaemon.net; s=dkey; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=rNG/WF/8CqoBffuGkfDp1FwMZ01f6inGgvSPNoEauo8=; b=RwNZ1K7vzrrGG/PD2NNNDpHMZeVi4DTr0bbF7hdolI1AfZPLwrEB8S+f6/5m9aCRjv FPVUqHWPq9ewY2iuBe31204LnLjFn8lOzPwq8cJnalud3EYiPERflD7DtzQfZjoJgton iQTTFt/0pzLldZ0x/gnsChrPoXiNqndJkk6ck=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=rNG/WF/8CqoBffuGkfDp1FwMZ01f6inGgvSPNoEauo8=; b=LY03mx2LPo45hS1fUiuDbObzI66dzt5w3By0goio6MHaQgKZTcGeTJEznuZGIgX4YW KUDqALnefEc6dcQFL7xnubQV6/lE9SPRnK5MBwPGmM8nwHtbrRE97NcCmtupwRujxRfi AR6GcXfxPiQbFkjD8UsaCFL2HwcILMrhv7hw7inMZTVZBtJIhWHxhHxrR68QTIUNlT6J JvfAuq8T6cwUfIfHmb/HljmIvw4VlN0OBIZ3ksDgBU5jPpcOujDHpIF4gfoHh0YUpyUz 33cdKWSwOFpKn32rR/Uy164zgODPhLZHV341BDMLw9UpqPjVurd1t1HPXh61Lpey5ll2 HvNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXUkcTyMsc1TGqIjfOtQCl0gswrr11WLCB86Huey+uviF6phB67 J7niiBK1y5Gs/lAwve33OWWjsPhwQ7M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLxVtuJcgXjOuJo/cAuvMUWu8qY1RTVHRgj+LE2dCDOyeS6DjWT2/5qEaid4/LdJJ4BQyTDw==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:5e8b:: with SMTP id s133mr16477224ywb.149.1559634438504; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] ([68.235.242.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l6sm1203767ywi.86.2019.06.04.00.47.17 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AFA1C2DF-D2B9-49A0-B1FD-C4A13CEF1783"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 03:47:16 -0400
References: <20190531175532.Horde.UpMFNBGKjRWB_hCZWHwSUfK@webmail.aegee.org> <CAL0qLwZpCmOV58Zc=ALJzfTsX-4F=5=d882+RYyRXFvkhb4PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZpCmOV58Zc=ALJzfTsX-4F=5=d882+RYyRXFvkhb4PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <6B17221E-25B4-4031-B758-7EA6B92FBA6E@eudaemon.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5dH8_SpnQWsO37iVBgByeYFmmVU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate 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, 04 Jun 2019 07:47:22 -0000

> On Jun 1, 2019, at 4:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org <mailto:Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>> wrote:
> Shall I submit an erratum to RFC7489?
> 
> I would, yes.  And this should certainly be recorded as something we need to fix for standards track DMARC, whether by chasing down RFC7489 errata or via a dedicated issue in this WG's tracker.

I did not see this item submitted as errata, so I put it into the tracker:

  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/30

I'd like to float the idea that this scenario might be something operators address when they're generating reports (perhaps mentioned in DMARC Usage Guide?). 

That said, the NOTIFY=NEVER idea makes a lot of sense to me, but I have to admit I'm not exactly sure how easy it is for operators to set this. If its not super obvious and available everywhere for free, I have to assume this means it'll be partially deployed forever, which puts us back at square one.

Sending with an empty RFC5321.MAILFROM sort of turns DMARC reports into a form of DSN. Implications unknown!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email