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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 25 January 2021 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 CD6833A1860 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:24:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 SV4u710jqEhp for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 DE4243A0813 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:24:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611606251; bh=87CJZWwfFxQPoMvvuW38hA0thka3dPFFwl+GfEE92DI=; l=891; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DYxIRdTPgSLS/QjTk59Il+dHjVkk8az6t21Kxjhi6fi7P9v//RBECyA+a0FNMT26M vgFe3PQjV2wMN5RC5izeGOaGzODfLtAaLyIz8DxkP64F0+An424ErBSXwXF+WppCz9 VZgC6X/VLrBL4fjHtxpqRRGcZO3/Sa2Q0P9LnGfhBLQiabk5eo+dfhqQlQFhN
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.00000000600F28EB.0000111B; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:24:11 +0100
To: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <34317129-8225-fb38-4ad3-e1b9ffed21fb@iecc.com> <9c84fa50-d23c-a794-fc62-09788ac383a9@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <97c58213-8de9-faf6-997d-25a1d13cca74@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:24:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Rlx0K-6vDOoFKk39ssnwlOA4AA8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:24:19 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 14:25:23 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
> About that, aggregate reports are meant to be machine-parsed, and in my own 
> experience that's accomplished by running a cron job a couple times a day to 
> process the rua mailbox. (Personally, I favored Mark Overmeer's perl stuff; 
> open the mailbox, cycle through each message, strip off the attachment, unzip 
> it, and pass it to the tools that John wrote to read the XML and store the 
> results in a database, but I was working at a relatively small site.)


For a counter example, I read aggregate reports one by one, if at all.  They 
get an automated HTML rendering that makes it easy to see success at a glance, 
and the mail site is small enough that I can afford doing so.  Authentication 
status is visible at a glance too, so I can judge the report's merit.

IMHO, reports SHOULD be authenticated.

Best
Ale
--