Re: [dmarc-ietf] ESC for Failed DMARC Validation

[Дилян Палаузов <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alessandro,

I mean an enhanced status code, as at 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes/smtp-enhanced-status-codes.xhtml .

Would you reply to messages failing DMARC with such a code, irrespective of whether the message was accepted or
rejected?  Are there privacy risks connected with such ESC?

Regards
  Дилян

On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 19:18 +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Hi Dilyan,
> 
> 
> I'm not clear if you refer to the "DSN" extension (rfc3461).  In fact, positive
> DSNs contain the A-R header field, and so can inform the sender when a message
> is accepted although some of SPF/ DKIM/ DMARC failed.
> 
> I don't send failure reports, as they look plenty of privacy risks.  Perhaps
> they could be sent to trusted sites only, but that way they'd lose generality.
> 
> It's unfortunate that FR seem to be the only means to tell unwanted failures
> from real spam/ phishing successfully blocked by the protocol.  Perhaps that
> distinction could be added to aggregate reports, even if it's not an exact science.
> 
> 
> Best
> Ale
> 
> 
> On Fri 02/Aug/2019 18:00:11 +0200 Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> > why sites do not sent failure reports?
> > 
> > Will a site, not sending failure report, be willing to use an Enhanced Status Code, to signal, that the DKIM/SPF
> > implementations of the receiver and sender disagree?
> > 
> > * * * New Enhanced Status Code for Failed DMARC Validation
> > 
> > Code: X.7.30
> > Assocaited basic status code: Any
> > Description:  Used as partial substitution to failure reports, when DMARC validation fails.  250 2.7.30 means, that the
> > message was delivered, ordinary or as junk, despite failed DMARC validation. 550 5.7.30 is used when the message is
> > rejected, because the DMARC validation failed.  This status code is only usefull, when the receiving site does not send
> > failure reports.
> > 
> > Regards
> >   Дилян