Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 28 January 2021 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533A03A1755 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ew8xbVjBWFKx for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E33393A1751 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s83so1408596vsc.4 for <>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pHKavKndYEaa0zwj/n+dganQT06P1kIFQHPpFiBGZuo=; b=bdfkBd7iY/qcqeszwrMYt+WAppVvOEBVwSFIBMGElRX2DKTGMC6lSzimcfGFrlFQOc Fw+TYO1tevTJonIwFuSydFvxJuhVAcCt+d5j50t8isL8z3+Vn02mgVLbzTZK5ESvOVSW K5ccIU/Qg4tGccsEIOaJlt3VHBoIf1Yxshg9JWbU1EXS/cam2oaYqcgX2RNGlyQeisq/ ZE/lKLqveet6bjAcqq21VI88KIZvsABeJzWMGhrjDteC34ZI+FYcNogPnAIqEvX/RdhF 5vnuMcUfRIFscT/DQC0mubUXq5+w2nvw5tPdn84mIyVrVtnlICU+6ZZQrmOzLnXcNLCi FaRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pHKavKndYEaa0zwj/n+dganQT06P1kIFQHPpFiBGZuo=; b=d6Rn9Qv2OOp96lTcrOdeMEy3WVCMc4W194VNCzU3+ZDFBYbVxijjCcYYvqeNmrEgvq /Bt9oVSYTGxoVuyfVzbA/kEchGDh0OB/5d7QkHmWbNMzbNB8zxiyZXCW7wPkqCIfSVrs JeUKhSjX3lQ+a0oaAsjCdbi7uQ5s4mq6rXQSAEVPgy9HNsQbPIvu89NoR8tKKMn7sxBW 3d68ZkZFwYDiENAYjzedInnMLA8f92QGlEoKu8YqEFCYdyjzoOD6a607s8E/JvKR775w 5qHxORUODNM9HigxZziUL1+V/nPspb9iRtryLBeC88Z6h8GVyxtEg3UwkRTZYRflV5hi QWaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Rw9pJqb2BIgffNYwT2dablek6R+7x1892ADxBdx6Otfp3yv0O kFIQwKRRgr5KAuUXUvevhMH2zdfvHX2UXO8LhTn439oP86o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNdYOWLMUTudR/Nw9gZtM0RN1oyAiK6HXvdjdVXKJbihQ8SXvJuHu2YPNmS1umJGTEEa3+oPr17zFDI61c04M=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:18c6:: with SMTP id 189mr1310287vsy.54.1611867587710; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210127203714.007C86CDB9CA@ary.qy> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:59:36 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: John R Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fd92f505b9fc2ac0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 20:59:50 -0000

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:08 PM John R Levine <> wrote:

> Which of these should we do:
> A) Everyone in the world who produces failure reports adds special cases
> to look for incoming failure reports, and heuristics to try and recognize
> failure reports in the wrong format, and when it finds one of them, it
> makes a note not to send a failure report about it.
> B) Someone slaps me upside the head and I fix my SPF record so my reports
> are sent correctly.

I'm suggesting:

C) Stipulate somehow that generated reports should not contain data about
received reports.  (If you do that, then you likely obviate the need to
generate a new report back to that operator in the first place.)

This to me is almost exactly the same thing as saying "Don't generate a
bounce about a bounce", which has been part of SMTP for decades (it's a
SHOULD NOT in 2821).  I don't understand why you're saying it's appropriate
in one but a non-issue in the other.