IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 16 May 2020 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2675E3A09D6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 02:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 LTRI5-Ha4Ow2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2020 02:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 2DE7A3A09D1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2020 02:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1589621852; bh=7QcxfpZfiAfLOOqHNvIxYJzCQMmwrPQ6RHEO2d6GCSM=; l=1002; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CB6EkhBTDAjaqlpKavT863DJ32ARkZvhJrPAexDVMQBphdDsH2/1el3+/YkYbrLzk ih1ZPJlvyQsPXQbLntJ2AMJL9BBy2qWzPNETCcSAbrU58Iizb4mjj9CrgMndqQ8Q22 WPpqGmIwxZSMUibFRqtEV993npt7TJBkicvU+rq1uKp0y2sgdzlyJj3iyT/Ai
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0C3.000000005EBFB45C.000050A4; Sat, 16 May 2020 11:37:32 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <b9e5da13-280e-1bf6-bdd4-185c10fbe396@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 11:37:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/EpKDBwiQQASQYqduX0iBr6jblwk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?
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, 16 May 2020 09:37:36 -0000

On Fri 15/May/2020 20:26:24 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/63
> 
> A published DMARC record that consists solely of "v=DMARC1; p=none" is
> syntactically valid, but is semantically equivalent to having no record at all.
> 
> From an ecosystem perspective, especially in Europe, data has been shared
> showing an increasing number of domains putting in bare p=none records, and
> then claiming that they are implementing DMARC and have some layer of
> protection against spoofing of their domain.
> 
> Explicitly making this case invalid would remove confusion from the ecosystem,
> and allow any checker that is up to spec to properly flag a bare p=none record
> as being the same as not having a record at all.
> 
> Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address?


No.  A bare "v=DMARC1; p=none" still behaves better than NXDOMAIN, and may cut
the number of necessary queries.  We should instead recommend it.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email