IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Loops with DKIM reports

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 04 June 2019 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 664C9120115 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.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 Wk5McY-yRUu9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 0E65F1200FD for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.22.211] (80-64-77-66.static.acetelecom.hu [80.64.77.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x54CAgeu006616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:10:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1559650247; bh=rrjPhjC+pTjNjnwLnrubM4v9rdXCGfCsKBUWABuInIc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DZePffJxfqUSVdKH4S86GqeUrneUOhJKYQD8Oyr9WyfPAKCHjirzUomS8PxACXJMK k+zgmACQ8GdzdNDqSOe8mC16+0RQDD3suoQ0c6A9nt57R1JRz7FLcBZfRs6GvlcS4a RZSVkVvx/9HUQE024lhnWW4Ow4vEcOfgXl7pll2o=
To: Vladimir Dubrovin <dubrovin@corp.mail.ru>, Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
References: <26D82EA6-8E39-4AED-BB9D-E2F53E7548C4@aegee.org> <adeaa778-5025-6fa2-0fe4-d10e2ea984c4@dcrocker.net> <eed31056-7f51-ee2a-5367-8fca5f6770aa@corp.mail.ru>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <2a93577c-ee69-5edf-c347-dff46f568189@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:08:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eed31056-7f51-ee2a-5367-8fca5f6770aa@corp.mail.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5h8zxGlu4NQHCS-RvO8kuda9WOc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Loops with DKIM 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 12:12:54 -0000

On 6/4/2019 1:48 PM, Vladimir Dubrovin wrote:
> Reports are not sent to Return-Path address, empty return path does not
> prevents report from being sent. Actually, report with empty

My comment was meant about the DMARC report being sent without a return 
(envelope from) address, the same as is already true for other email 
infrastructure control messages.


> envelope-from has higher chances to generate a reverse report, because

I don't understand how it is possible to send a report when there is no 
address to send it to.


> in this case SPF is checked against HELO and, in practice, many seders
> do not have SPF configured for HELO name and SPF failure can trigger a
> report.

I don't understand how the HELO domain name is relevant to this 
discussion, since it isn't a full email address.

d/



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email