IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Sun, 02 October 2022 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
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 CF92DC14F727 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_GREY=0.424, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vkZHV49XArO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 394EEC14F724 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id g20so9668016ljg.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=j1qJC8B4o0cOvzQi55WomyoadHWPl+8o9kp44IH7A2Q=; b=lYVU5QGJZTecyCOn4Y+8WAerlVXbqQindQjrb/okWS8lNlcKbcq487etV+HR9Hg+X2 NyD32v2WPdeDykBSMXFGVx9W/r8J1p9ovuxDYgtcMiOY0WHyh9xAgeZn5oxeQLaDWAqc AWNBnaCHLo9bBSY9XgxO+SSdB0gUw3/EPmP9HaoyLL1SrNXDqGLHGtZ7F/x+5XJ+DQWe VIOmQtPGp9X8eY4oP8v2ZT8K351aQU8Vn+ek7tsyhYwRMZovk/KTa+yV3cUeqpu3Ws0/ 0zSHYgYxuVkkwmeQaCefYZ+eQggjT7qL1s/gi26ZlKmkLg8GQmAocZfdjYg+UOzC6Bzl QKaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=j1qJC8B4o0cOvzQi55WomyoadHWPl+8o9kp44IH7A2Q=; b=pCEI0g4dirLXTppQVLL5eoIvcDXL8riI9/HSph6bICrhkcwbD8toKqdl8OGZ7xZ8+2 XhTzL2l135kGAfrfSuE3BFNq1ETAt1YsuR+sXNwXM++ByFqgicYi2A2JYilT5o9VkK6U upris53tFI4imN8CFfCT/6mk5CFR5VNXsEOXAK8l7lRWPUvS0fopODjf3sxM9OpFIeJO PWbrkL3F2DXrE32+b9TZKiavPg0YnpKXjGgxBTCKXdKQBoszEnY256wwiW30WlYVlnOO N/OZWZ0S4ig3c167pD7Y2dRV6W8rd7lSYkkFLNBJivj/A6t0jXfw8uuCwIwphhU+ICTr 1aNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1Zc3XLgF0qEtXoM8yzPFLENmutlWRTvmYCBzoASNbexSlicIH+ xtmSoaEAwi/eTczm7Z+8Q2cHz8PpVjwcpBSImiLFlcxn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5NT3k3pcuTH78FzfwVsrCaqMcExZ1Lj5hV/urfbaDdpdYEwYeLmQblg2yylXTnKSuOltTiL5cj+54561xP1uk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:8f:b0:26d:d4ab:319d with SMTP id 15-20020a05651c008f00b0026dd4ab319dmr956943ljq.524.1664733653515; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165046214335.10055.16398898629460366752@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <165046214335.10055.16398898629460366752@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:00:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000010438705ea1102f1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BcDBNoB8x5K1vXoNuy9fVYVDAY0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:01:01 -0000

In many cases, an evaluator can determine a DMARC PASS result
without evaluating every available identifier.

   - If a message has SPF PASS with acceptable alignment, the evaluator has
   no need to evaluate any DKIM signatures to know that the message produces
   DMARC PASS.
   - Some identifiers are easily excluded by simple inspection:   A "
   sendgrid.net" identifier cannot authenticate "example.com"

When the evaluator has an identifier which is known but not evaluated, he
does not have a way to document this outcome in the aggregate reports.   To
fix this hole, we should add an authentication result of "not evaluated"

Doug Foster

>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email