Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate Reports
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 01 June 2019 08:22 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 08D971201D9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 01:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1OiaQ-J6DhDj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 01:22:55 -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 6546B12004D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 01:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.125] (178-164-174-220.pool.digikabel.hu [178.164.174.220]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id x518KdlS006348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 1 Jun 2019 01:20:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1559377252; bh=qOq+YzSY65SF3BviTvXfEIvdqiMm4SOL2UoTO51hNnA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VGAlBCUHqJp55VThQuGBlV8+ULu+cYyw0yRlPbORsPR/9kV77uqrwF8vvvT2NEGvp a320eyrGs1C5EpFnibwN9iqK1BlKm1jGrVUKJ5xpJbEawkjGvw7jn7kv4e27M97tBZ 1wABKk5iC46mFh5KAb+kNX3D0mxWGknvyeKzno9I=
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Dilyan Palauzov <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20190531175532.Horde.UpMFNBGKjRWB_hCZWHwSUfK@webmail.aegee.org> <CAL0qLwZpCmOV58Zc=ALJzfTsX-4F=5=d882+RYyRXFvkhb4PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <f5c5ea46-71ec-4fdd-36bb-fce37271d894@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 10:18:28 +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: <CAL0qLwZpCmOV58Zc=ALJzfTsX-4F=5=d882+RYyRXFvkhb4PSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Du6sKl4KRxdv8TbwoRVd5ABCzC4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate 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: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 08:22:57 -0000
On 6/1/2019 10:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov > <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org <mailto:Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>> wrote: > > Shall I submit an erratum to RFC7489? > > > I would, yes. And this should certainly be recorded as something we > need to fix for standards track DMARC, whether by chasing down RFC7489 > errata or via a dedicated issue in this WG's tracker. Hmmm... The formal rule for errata in the RFC system is rather constrained: Only errors that mis-specify what was intended are permitted. So, errors in thinking or failures to provide for cases don't count as errata. What this means is that there is no standard way to record the need for better-performing capabilities or addition of new capabilities or the like. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate R… Dilyan Palauzov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Hector Santos
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Tim Draegen
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggrega… Alessandro Vesely