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

"Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl> Tue, 06 August 2019 15:11 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 2D0581203AD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_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 nfu0Yy4558sb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:11:33 -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 099DE120365 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:11:32 -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=ruNoRf0NI2t1VjfI769VovD7munOmDw931TsXnlRjGY=; b=HhZkpQbFNeRaewK4olf8YHdaHK c/lQse+6vjeO8N3n93KPIzYcsfyJ6vizBnfNwkBGBIcaqAJDjNsNGIuXkkmiN2np+AOf8TmESa3gC tJsH9jbmXa28C5XQq3wZaSmrGIRzd/1EtHQ3mpXt6Uh2JGYs8qsKjmvW2IbC6ebao8GsEfTxqX7qs U+TKW7SxTQRouSKUN0Z5YubtFfxdkxdO0Qtrkorokay8GrZFBnKyFXbY4VXprVX98c6cEe4LbLtyx A14ucQz48tXEZCmbRsHORQdDkkmyfu5285W4JRi/T2NueqRTl3/zvYHDsQGbYL3wwcoEN2vQsuufZ KChK2NHQ==;
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 1hv17a-0007vS-Nz for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 17:11:30 +0200
From: "Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
To: <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:11:29 +0200
Message-ID: <009c01d54c69$39745520$ac5cff60$@leemankuiper.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdVMZb+w/9K+Rqz0QAWOGUPx1Dt+Ug==
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/Ql4WHQ_lbTZ3-ZziXEm_yBBgaKY>
Subject: [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 15:11:39 -0000

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. This is probably due to the fact that some messages have a
'null reverse-path'. The RFC5321 (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) chapter
4.5.5 allows a 'null reverse-path' ("<>") to be used for non-delivery
notifications, delivery status notifications and message disposition
notifications.

So what to do? Should messages with a null reverse-path be excluded in DMARC
rua reports or should the minOccurs value of the 'envelope_from' element be
changed from '1' to '0'?

-- Freddie Leeman