[dmarc-ietf] Recipient domain in aggregate reports (#23)

Matthäus Wander <mail@wander.science> Wed, 28 April 2021 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mail@wander.science>
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 335A33A1FE9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wander.science
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 UdkFXe0laNzL for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swznet.de (cathay.swznet.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:13b:2048::113]) (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 8488C3A1FE8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wander.science; s=cathay; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jdyDI/EkTAyEmBEtcA0r/D9Bx1OQNeTl6TulSOqUQIo=; b=CMPrl3SVQ6XtHPFYT2n7onBHn8 OTVbe7//k0yEcTE8JqhTHuLciQvI7P+ImGbhJTAYBlJ723mMEsOvAqx95ustjebn2Dp8Xp6yfJoLh 809d/s8bpaU6pENsbXhPBPlee79gncFBZG4RF7YUPe7qlOZeTcqfr02I+xD8r0641e8D/efeqNJK4 pG2Z1Q7rk1qKlsEKQvJEITEVI3kv4gRKRmtDpj/dGI0TT0IhIHaxxuQesxQDeMSKPF021R10i+o7m q5WyMnjEhXQcyQ9wHBbymzISIkFjsXGxNY0k0RjMy1UvZEeuN5+L7dNueZpmjLTQHnHUGhHfQk0Fl TzK3yWDQ==;
Received: from dynamic-2a01-0c22-b86d-ea00-149e-8735-e4ca-8fce.c22.pool.telefonica.de ([2a01:c22:b86d:ea00:149e:8735:e4ca:8fce]) by mail.swznet.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mail@wander.science>) id 1lbfXS-0005VP-If for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:27:18 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Matth=c3=a4us_Wander?= <mail@wander.science>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <f3d272c6-8adf-0797-cb46-c2166a9e292b@wander.science>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:27:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:c22:b86d:ea00:149e:8735:e4ca:8fce
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mail@wander.science
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 08 May 2019 21:11:16 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.swznet.de)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ijh3Ez9S-7alVhcGTuKbkU-hues>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Recipient domain in aggregate reports (#23)
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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:27:27 -0000

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the party. I'd like to bring in some practical experience of
working with DMARC rua reports.

#23 introduces "receiving_domains" in the report metadata, justified by
large infrastructures that host a large number of domains (e.g. Google).

I think, this information would be more useful per-record rather than in
the global metadata. As large infrastructures tend to include many
different records in the report, the analyst needs a correlation between
record and recipient domain.

The <identifiers> section has an optional "envelope_to" already:
>        <!-- The envelope recipient domain. -->
>        <xs:element name="envelope_to" type="xs:string"
>                    minOccurs="0"/>

Is there a benefit in the global "receiving_domains" over the per-record
"envelope_to"?

Most reporters don't include "envelope_to" (e.g. Google). This field
could be made more prominent in the draft. The main body mentions
"header_from" only, but neither "envelope_to" nor "envelope_from".

Regards,
Matt