Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 06 August 2019 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46401205DB for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gsp9hQ4DrLcu for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9710812028B for <>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1565113003; bh=ncb9TIAOFZ88zpKWA9/a9KBO7M0rbfnTgUywIpNCkV4=; l=1571; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BpWBXYwFx+uzs/g0muhhLtqJzhA9kxYzCDIH7FLFhLBGHZXYeaJpqYho+LewQAZjd b9BDhCkUvo3xmNjudBWeHMoLY9Fm3tUEf1m1v1bIl9ei+7KJBwY1M+rVNjxfDNyW0O WQrZ9W19UKIjZQEvSJgTKaRgZD4ddYgT71Gy4BGbBDvQa+AqbMgJ24nH4YO9g
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC042.000000005D49BAAB.0000283F; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 19:36:43 +0200
References: <008401d54784$f8300750$e89015f0$>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:36:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <008401d54784$f8300750$e89015f0$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 17:36:48 -0000

On Wed 31/Jul/2019 11:47:29 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:
> [...]
> DMARC reporting capabilities are a valuable aspect of the DMARC mechanism. It
> can help domain owners in setting up and hardening their DKIM/SPF/DMARC policy.
> But unless these reports follow strict guidelines they just pile up to a lot of
> inconsistent data open to interpretation and guesswork. Domain owners should be
> able to understand the data without the need for a spiritual voodoo DMARC guru
> (trademark pending) to make sense of it all.

I had tried and programmed carefully, but never formally checked what I was
sending.  Too bad.  Now that I did, I see my reports miss the <pct> and <fo>[*]
elements, and some other nuisance.

However, the most striking difference is that, after some tinkering, to be able
to formally validate a report, it has to be rewritten like so:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <dmarc:feedback xmlns:xs=""
        xs:schemaLocation=" rua.xsd">

Is that correct?  Is that how reports should be written?  I ask because
checking some aggregate report I received, I found no mention of namespaces and
schema locations.  XSLT works well even without those.  Validation doesn't.

What do you reckon?


[*] <fo> is present in Appendix C of the spec, but not in