Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help

Michael Thomas <> Mon, 25 January 2021 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D98C3A174C for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffKVBG7XaEhe for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE00B3A187B for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q131so9009712pfq.10 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=3P1uNJc+qB0GDXJU6+TH8ZPOim2oBdGx6sKghchMg0M=; b=fp1J8jbobMn4h/4yhir/rhVVegHJnNOGi+WnWQNN93uI/k2uQwZewEi1GGdQkVpZC9 B+0WKR+etPNvuh4FcFzOd9/6g2y1EIY2ZRVc4fxMPyCmVyUxt1KxM5hgwilM4ofJB1Gf A7oKimfPgGy/VZFPtVgqrnl3NncK/GQx4myZIkFSMqku6/DwV8Yjvb8/ydjm+/K3L3Sr kcE80NtdZnVEFnGsj5krkiCNrlmYZNmFA0Cf8qJgEzARrvcSazFvFp8UsY9IAUusCVMb GlqiGst1uB8YQxJZhf6LTakvDF0ThRlutaLypnPwr5n9F8EUbAVAiRZWxKhHlZ7nyt4S 0W6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=3P1uNJc+qB0GDXJU6+TH8ZPOim2oBdGx6sKghchMg0M=; b=nxy+LS+Yn+S86T3t9UbM1215orB8eeKeu5SuuLzaEJ+efABVDmon1Uk8G9RQW88aw4 AL9HmBa4dN28VRm+/+TWk8K9dJtjjRi6boNOw8mHWXaWJAKWLQ2sDYkCV1Ocrnh/loBG 4+aoaxwJzgm70ei9BUTpIlJZHUOfNj0/o2nGc/8AMEPwy+C8Uij0qNyW3kNT6nIt9uTz 07rG4XD7o22s1RR0LQR4u/SIbxZ72bSESa3Px+RlJXE3DtfL3mzk6MCOsZPbtU0O9+oE U212JnrJG0zUtMEBq8ijSnIwwAbTswdszKnu0UFlZUVVFtqskBUbwOupcigaNUd/rtbI gIow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oaZ3Qn6cDSCv+SH1QkE6Ca3tCj/4lGr+ecckuROdt7g8qSYez AkWrKMqVfOfLSfKUiMukgYENS2I5cSshmg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwHLmt/7+MCcXOiZ1QiRJKwp1TjklR1i7EegGa3Y2zez923SQFCC1WJJTRCGLoJoEfY+KCyQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:88b:b029:19c:780e:1cd with SMTP id q11-20020a056a00088bb029019c780e01cdmr1828166pfj.64.1611604537002; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x21sm17521810pgi.75.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:36 -0800 (PST)
References: <20210125195231.E0DE16C13E26@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:55:35 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210125195231.E0DE16C13E26@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:55:44 -0000

On 1/25/21 11:52 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> DMARC alignment on the report seems of limited value unless it is aligned
>> to the domain being reported. ...
> I'm getting the impression that some of us have not looked at any DMARC reports.
> Aggregate reports contain the domain of the reporter, and the domain
> of the sender to whom they are sending the report. They do NOT have
> the domains to which the messages were sent or where they were
> received, which are often different for forwarded or mailing list mail.
> For at least the third time, there is no "domain being reported". When
> I get reports from Google or any other multi-tenant mail provider,
> they do not say to which of their gazillion hosted domains the mail
> was sent. That is not a bug, and it's been like that for a decade.
Sounds like a bug to me and an issue should be opened. Just because it's 
a 10 year old bug doesn't mean it's not a bug.