Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua reports?

"Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl> Tue, 06 August 2019 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
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 D733712008B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=leemankuiper.nl
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 WhZtEb9G_qXH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl (srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl [87.239.9.190]) (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 3A91912006E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leemankuiper.nl; s=mta1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject: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=FpzCXuCHA0a/exPaGaY47BLJ72zFVZ0JMuFlxkGRwnw=; b=ZFvPCR+EEv10qb7l9yIbTWO8cZ X/2s/fr9HwTJjIjQGZwfJ3EbJsRCw+0Mir9Ik6A5lHCWermhR375fsvV/+snfnJS4YsiAsTWqbqUL esbH15OWefzTbEvxl/0qDFhrk3zTXtl14u1opqMhgKVT66EjGPufXy11Q03Yv1Inz6T2jLXePNrC2 +Ycs80ZTTDavWQKuVgzCoXhxj43oeNAiqPqj0i5nzNj0dElDmvm8gJMeXr2quo2XW9WBtcJm/dHAs zdsuI2X0F0E6vCtP2JmSghRLDvGY33WscBUvunWo/ZML1M1050CfLfd5DZ2AVEtQzlRdxZN8sakXa JpooTttQ==;
Received: from 83-85-239-134.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([83.85.239.134] helo=LAPC01) by srv01.leeman-automatisering.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.1) (envelope-from <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>) id 1hv7cg-0007Di-SK for dmarc@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:08:02 +0200
From: "Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
To: <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 00:08:01 +0200
Message-ID: <00ba01d54ca3$69ffce10$3dff6a30$@leemankuiper.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdVMo19P9yM3YqgRRCCBo5V9iPTfBw==
Content-Language: nl
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
X-Authenticated-Id: info@leemankuiper.nl
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Je8aG2PpkzFoGSnE80eO12EvdXI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua 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, 06 Aug 2019 22:08:06 -0000

Thanks for you input John. I know the difference between missing and empty. Most (larger) organizations omit the element completely (zoho.com, google.com, linkedin.com, mail.ru, comcast.net, Yahoo! Inc.). Only 34 percent of all DMARC report generating organizations publish reports with an empty envelope_from (stats based on last 7 days).

If we agree that messages with a 'null reverse-path' should be included in reports, than Appendix C should state that this element is mandatory but can be empty. Another solution would be to allow the element to be omitted, saving bytes (personal preference). Are these non-delivery notifications, delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications useful in DMARC reports? If so, than we have to agree on how to report these messages and make the appendix clearer so that there can be no misinterpretation.

-- Freddie Leeman

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: John Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 6 augustus 2019 22:24
Aan: dmarc@ietf.org
CC: freddie@leemankuiper.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Should 'undeliverable mail' be included in DMARC rua reports?

In article <009c01d54c69$39745520$ac5cff60$@leemankuiper.nl>; you write:
>I've noticed that, even though RFC7489 appendix C states that the 
>'envelope_from' element has a minOccurs of '1', this element is missing 
>quite frequently.

It's not missing, it's empty.  That's not the same thing.

R's,
John