Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate Reports

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 04 June 2019 15:01 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 31714120077 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 xTvgNYUpc_D0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BB0512002F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1559660496; bh=BhgeG8eFHhliWe15BejEWc/sISu7Si0c8qF+ML5nA9Y=; l=2085; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BlXuvWPWYVhCIFeIZH0FxhYqbts3H/224+2lgwWeuTicIOlsB9nO8M/4GJpslLOoa 1gqBFvAOkY7bfPEjnlIZoRgzJLWpVlshjMTtDe1d/1KqovmHIi44Zd0/o8FKBQ/XSk Tot6uQcF254HXqWhDl46VUU1dEC2EdrLZ0jEqpg85OxJLPVjkqnU71aqgZO9P
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) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 17:01:36 +0200 id 00000000005DC077.000000005CF687D0.00002E6E
To: Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20190531175532.Horde.UpMFNBGKjRWB_hCZWHwSUfK@webmail.aegee.org> <CAL0qLwZpCmOV58Zc=ALJzfTsX-4F=5=d882+RYyRXFvkhb4PSQ@mail.gmail.com> <6B17221E-25B4-4031-B758-7EA6B92FBA6E@eudaemon.net>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <a4d4e43d-53f0-b10d-0b28-35fda9bf8985@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 17:01:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6B17221E-25B4-4031-B758-7EA6B92FBA6E@eudaemon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ilrj92QvocaAGjz9JuU6_Yy9sho>
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 15:01:40 -0000

Hi Tim,

On Tue 04/Jun/2019 09:47:16 +0200 Tim Draegen wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2019, at 4:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy 
>>> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov
>>>
>>>     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.
> 
> I did not see this item submitted as errata, so I put it into the tracker:
> 
>   https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/30
> 
> I'd like to float the idea that this scenario might be something operators
> address when they're generating reports (perhaps mentioned in DMARC Usage Guide?). 


That's a good idea.


> That said, the NOTIFY=NEVER idea makes a lot of sense to me, but I have to
> admit I'm not exactly sure how easy it is for operators to set this. If its not
> super obvious and available everywhere for free, I have to assume this means
> it'll be partially deployed forever, which puts us back at square one.
> 
> Sending with an empty RFC5321.MAILFROM sort of turns DMARC reports into a form
> of DSN. Implications unknown!


Not quite.  The ticket is wrong in mentioning bounces, because they don't
trigger an aggregate report.  Aggregate reports cover _any_ message that is
received with a From: domain having a DMARC record and a rua address.  That
obviously includes any aggregate reports that is received from the relevant
address.

The best solution I saw is not to send aggregate reports from a domain that has
a DMARC record with a rua address:
http://lists.dmarc.org/pipermail/dmarc-discuss/2018-October/004164.html

When I read that, I changed the From: header field of my generator, but I'm not
sure I did fix anything.  Once triggered, that kind of loop would last forever,
with <count>1</count> every day from both sides acknowledging each other's
report.  I looked for such a loop and found none, perhaps because every other
domain had already applied the trick?


Best
Ale
--