IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
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 A5BBF3A1157 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 TVLr9OV5rq-8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:57:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA493A11F1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id h11so2318389vsa.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:57:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9s/6S9YcY4LKYu25Vk98LM5pLp2ycc035nCvMoV3cdg=; b=Oif23qcB9BYlG0R1Ld/i4tdS4FjCAeOvpAnDm8ktVsqiUliOkoO0oiKMiKezntWKKE +76uhsTgM2yCOsgbE58OH5ZU+67X9P26oxoR4UFjn8G2pMVK/CF5xsRFVzj+blotd6Ec ZNxfc0yvqOna4XpGyBrVh3cjv2tV8GMBbh3AMh6BjQ2M+ZkO77LzmvJPmA8GlZluelC0 LmNsOKySyXReCPMG5K2i7R0hhvpoLxJKfdbPP9TVRd8rox2HmfRlNmzT4H0EYpYHwKbN Z/FkP7b5kjcphYqo4y9mlV4CLoezXJVM2+p1vCusIgBYjWHGnPWhZAAggXXautv14GVh AglA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9s/6S9YcY4LKYu25Vk98LM5pLp2ycc035nCvMoV3cdg=; b=NPgH0X+YW/N4aj4dTlShDzGnDRkCkR6DPg6ByMsXdeOUJdZ1IEOPuGO9Hto5oanxoK 12Eca9lwcbHBx9E0dQQPX3pk2C0pgIdWqa3yxIDnylHi3z8KBr2P7Vaohs76+Oh1nWkR CshP5KjkFEszBaq6I6tBsoCOBKxMutQKpCqCOkzJrEd/BpfxQAXNivJWcJlVZ2ru+l5M y5dNqC+skmgKR1KjK3AEQPf1MRAhu4mv2hYgtYwa8qALS3Bmhhfs6QPGAL3cQTTn9cCe dx03ZuEwP/zEj/NTbEMzp339y40Y22RNj1ocbb2Offel6/IBWBINgff0nn3WcQqbAzPo +n1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yaRc/uMuFQ6xfQ+NKABZggMhCEzimUC6chZud1mB8mSx0dV1r p8b+Ku9zVJCKylCUB/9w79DqgGqpjVJXkbIjCXkg/27G
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtohfA5Yp9YrqArJ+XSt2y4eXko2Fcy+T4DvtVK6vE4+FeVOrgMPjo2YARI+wxR6n/tYiNlJsB1+4WRo2iFqg=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:24c5:: with SMTP id k188mr10316748vsk.16.1611806236824; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:57:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwY5BbwvS9XXqBk=Mp074ntN=NeS97pJAxPBdQEZAsgohg@mail.gmail.com> <20210127203714.007C86CDB9CA@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwbN+HkGfvw79rPPvqL6jWWAsUtWY9X1gW=vAvoeQS8RHg@mail.gmail.com> <526bf4d5-5a7d-5a91-b965-36ffeab933f7@taugh.com> <183c0bc7-48e1-52c1-2a19-cd74fe8e4521@crash.com>
In-Reply-To: <183c0bc7-48e1-52c1-2a19-cd74fe8e4521@crash.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48Zfy+WcoXCbHZpmGqYy8pUg2dveHY7cd96j5t1DB2rXLKEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000031590d05b9ede200"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MzUQVACoXvXoQ0ypI1b5TWOKdl8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:57:20 -0000

Loops require two parties.  Any one party can protect both parties by
choosing to not perpetuate the loop.

Saying that "the other guy" should be smarter seems wishful thinking.  Of
course some other people will act stupidly.  Fixing that problem is not in
my scope.   Having their mistakes interfere with my system's normal
operation is not an option that I am willing to permit.

DF

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 10:20 PM Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> wrote:

> On 1/27/21 19:08, John R Levine wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >>> I still don't understand why failure reports about messages that
> >>> happen to be failure reports are in any way special.
> >>
> >> Loop detection in RFC 5321 is a normative MUST because of the obvious
> >> operational problems it creates.  Maybe I'm being thick, but right now I
> >> don't see how this is different, apart from the fact that each
> >> message is
> >> distinct; ...
> >
> > Here's perhaps another way to look at it.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > B) Someone slaps me upside the head and I fix my SPF record so my
> > reports are sent correctly.
> >
> > This does not strike me as a hard problem.
>
>
> It's not a hard problem. I see the last sentence in Section 3.3 as
> reserving the right to deliver that slap...
>
> --S.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email