Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 29 January 2021 01:15 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@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 401473A0925 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:16 -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 qNKZHhcI7NcC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2f]) (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 AFF9B3A091C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2f.google.com with SMTP id e1so1808165vkd.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:14 -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=L9sVRGaDN21l64bM39/PBLUZi6xK7Mh/nBIBmXgdkPw=; b=KC0XADpRffI73j+bcq7QE5eCB8jjWmUs5xwxpSBqG3E4MUJ7Z/40B4FSGukBGXYAJ+ 5YFZI1jKOCnnaulAPGcZixPaI1QP+qGQh8CYGhPydsKkF3fo8NN0RmKiYLu8rs38m77B yNDGwS/kOLoU/K3Ytpp9pTY8IU11vBTy9nQToRxqP/+iuujVevMTLKz0joIlpZhxOlPl +PxVkkZWfmWPaqivIOAQyokPzvZvJZfhNGz3tHhqkodvjEnI2/t220S+Rm7XAC7Gs40H su2coo4vkrSqprg70jmZd+q8i9EMUQeapb1wIAT9XnvaWjWVcr8JRlEEvqG/KAdbNjf2 uVYw==
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=L9sVRGaDN21l64bM39/PBLUZi6xK7Mh/nBIBmXgdkPw=; b=sGnxbHdjnv6xC8M+DZZEf+yUmd+PtHYS+hqzAyxGj/GXu0ZiQANVQGIUflb8i5WWR/ vIg9batlfh/3CRSZuzIvJkI4Ve0wkL36rnoPvM/oPSiNM15URMlPJZQ8gQjHCNlGh0Ar iGa+eTyuw9151yHZ0gvDn7rNWBRKBL1rfln3SRRHbKTX9OcNHMeqdPVqRA43whtjcmoY qxI42agQ3Z77eRuJXTF0eZ7s09PLdHJBktOk+wmsrNVmVA9oRsZrIq8o+fb4qGLXURwr DZZMrCXBSDAEbWquK+yhZ+062mRbAGU+dEdVm62yD5/5d4s/5cOr8A2KUSGk+VhnQkoR sJMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533s5NvaHQDdiiKOvaIaO44UCrE4rFCi/53j5xp7PkgGQOVKaNwE YNic3xyNrhr+RBpr6GWANzWHRVY9FDiBV7mDH2qW9Yb5on4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhQMb0idgg83y4ypHDidrNeiR9beRqllm6rzn0JhZMaGC9bjKILjulbdUNBjYEUIPqG3emWNa8lJ7prx0vBkI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:3889:: with SMTP id f131mr1641598vka.22.1611882913323; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:13 -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> <CAL0qLwb3Z6DbVCvhSF=G6dxjoYwjLvwzbG0OOAUbD=F8H6+wyg@mail.gmail.com> <661b7adf-fcf3-1ada-4b84-cb4ee23a48a@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <661b7adf-fcf3-1ada-4b84-cb4ee23a48a@taugh.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:15:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZt6GNkDPrme5QuDqRCpZ3Tw5ESNqH_ehOBRT22w02WiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000077de3305b9ffbc80"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PemBbK4Jt09eepJZRi1KWTNz-HE>
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 01:15:16 -0000
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:42 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: > > This to me is almost exactly the same thing as saying "Don't generate a > > bounce about a bounce", > > Because these are not bounces. They are not even a little bit like > bounces. Bounces are about invalid recipient addresses, but these have no > relation to anything about the recipient address. > Yes, I realize the difference. I was making an analogy. They are fresh new messages sent from a system that presumably cares > enough about DMARC to send reports about it, and presumably wants to send > all of its mail with DMARC alignment. If they are unaligned, that is > because the sending system is broken, and if that systems publishes an > ruf= tag, it is specifically asking to be inforned about exactly that > breakage. > OK, let's hop into your example. I care enough about DMARC to send reports about it, and I want to send all of my mail aligned. I send a test message that ends up unaligned somehow, perhaps through a broken relay I don't own, and I would ideally like to get one message back that tells me that. If I happen to send my test to a place that unintentionally sends an unaligned report back to me, perhaps because of the same relay, I'm going to get flooded, even though my local setup is verifiably correct. And, probably, so are they. You're saying the only real answer here is that the two end operators in this example need to fix their evidently-crappy setups, or change their DNS records to remove the "ruf" value until they can get the guy in the middle to fix whatever's broken? Maybe I'm the dim one, but I can't see why it's manifestly absurd to think we might somehow augment either the report or the message containing it by adding just enough metadata someplace to signal one end or the other, or both, to avert the flood. -MSK
- [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Steven M Jones
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Juri Haberland
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not a … John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not a … Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not a … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are not a … John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Juri Haberland
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Steven M Jones
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Steven M Jones
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] report floods, not Forensic repo… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dotzero
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a prob… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Douglas Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Michael Thomas
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic r… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Report bombing is a prolem, Fore… John R Levine