Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not a problem

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Sat, 16 January 2021 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46C73A19DE for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:31:10 -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 xVTZvhc1Mdyk for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48BBB3A19DD for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x4so7073285vsp.7 for <>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:31:09 -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=wSXxu4PQUbsXFbPFQoXCAcn4OA+Xbyf0N3Gs59GAO2A=; b=WQBZKRNJYepFfdDlKrg2g+AC4i2dsGmSMHYSnFrxo9n+h4UX3o5HNnejF0GaMOjepm kYmkyKn4ekN7YA1aN7MUHH2HX9tAMWGu665MjBZtWRRkeZrYC+uJKtNzQqXDLM2k3k5z mjU/fYZPm9K+WeFr4J7AHCHsa6vP3YpvhRjxykHSAI/qLN1V2d0OkOWXPWYpEkFAAFaC dhGYP58KrSEmCfhEtSpEMZDj16r/AKeQS3uU/P1qqU27IqPHW5ffqp6L5yWEw21St0l6 pLeUYUW9xIGE6E5z66Cke7RGAf8/9YG50JGAjqhInCjZohu38HY7HQmcEJnzRhA7GAzO PdwA==
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=wSXxu4PQUbsXFbPFQoXCAcn4OA+Xbyf0N3Gs59GAO2A=; b=IIv2j8afaNYHFo797g7n426Eqm1838tcYJb9SId6kMMdlaueGor/FOWqHRhhPt0Cn6 sRyWyiipnRstuiRDbZH6kEj+U58tD2BLR6dlQ9hNZ3bwS6GYUbRlXjKB+qH6NrS/bK0I 2RwyU/i3aSys51KOE/UM56D7sis88+8TfpZVQjCHd0RWwhVtQUyfDVXc6dZFALo080qR 7oE1y3qOZB/78Sj2BB49JhFiCoqfXgR8H9SL1/9Tloj3iI3MaDizxEAvIYAjhgltIni8 d1yLuM3oT5PBFzNS91PjTzNbvO9i6UEYOKbv5A4LQ4Q5OFi9VMCDw6Fe5EOzAKQusmN3 x78g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533R7BVJsBzyh1XDjo+MzVRI4JXfoScyWpl/DCLfvDiFZQdtjxGt 8jsAAiG+d+XXyQ4z/Og7OCarVvxhb69nTBYShcFKnbkTnxE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpaGskp8497Pzs+UrnRZ9Xv9u15YBwc868OPFeZ7kClbN7jmKdtJSuN/6nUef1oIrb9BNtB+linKgvFkCEPrY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:808:: with SMTP id g8mr9452059vsb.0.1610832668272; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:31:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210116034026.5C93F6AC0428@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20210116034026.5C93F6AC0428@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:30:56 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc348c05b90b3416"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not 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: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:31:11 -0000

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:40 PM John Levine <> wrote:

> I still don't understand why anyone thinks there is a problem to be
> fixed. If you don't want reports, don't ask for them. If you think the
> mail you send shouldn't be provoking DMARC failure reports, adjust
> whatever is sending the mail the mail is aligned, or get rid of the
> ruf= that asks for the reports. What am I missing here?

You might be right, so I'll go back and ask this use case what the
specifics are.

What I'm concerned about is that since this has come up before N times
(for, admittedly, some currently small value of N), we've seen enough
disparate cases of it that we may be missing something bigger, and if so,
doing something defensive in the specification would be prudent.  There's
smoke here, and there may be fire.

Will report back.