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

[John R Levine <[e-mail]>]

> C) Stipulate somehow that generated reports should not contain data about
> received reports.  (If you do that, then you likely obviate the need to
> generate a new report back to that operator in the first place.)

I can't even tell what might be a failure report without deep parsing and 
heuristics.  And, of course, I am not inclined to add extra code to 
program around other people's bugs.


> 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.

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.

Maybe I'm dim, but I am having no success understanding the apparent 
interpretion of ruf as "tell me about the unaligned messages I'm sending, 
except for some that should be really easy for me to fix."

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly