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

"Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl> Sun, 18 August 2019 07:34 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 8F011120026 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 00:34:37 -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 anGtWlldsepG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 00:34:35 -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 2A7A312001A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 00:34:34 -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:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GtFNdybKrcBetPCCRcqDYWUjFxgbNWc5wsrrJ1CLA4M=; b=PLACnXC0tgEHFftDkSAGyiRm2z 1dBu7fj275VfAfo9XF2yxIYTjkB0xOe9/ekC+j8uUa2c5o6zgo76gPa3qv/QLmNiNAAmGQ3b+wDFt +CM73uONlcDe0tHne2gcvNSqdCUteyUMyBfuTT3mzx4TEzzKvqv3qexT8b14OItXcWuzjXmeqZqj8 0B6LsOhP8S2c07+WhJ6/YZ7kV6ZA40uTyeUHVptPWSmz2nKC5sOiUaTX/TkGowZnawB8jkMj8fgtk zowk8mi9Vm/siLoAwVmTCmZjQ3lY7U6Igd8tqr/db+y3EEMl3Ja3qBuz95OnrV1pK5ZQliCaBxjL+ EV0QyAgg==;
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 1hzFhw-0005gK-MF; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 09:34:32 +0200
From: "Freddie Leeman" <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
To: "'Alessandro Vesely'" <vesely@tana.it>, <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <00ba01d54ca3$69ffce10$3dff6a30$@leemankuiper.nl> <134ba01d54de8$34b61fc0$9e225f40$@leemankuiper.nl> <d0d11036-ee07-36ca-cc13-f34ddf68fab5@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <d0d11036-ee07-36ca-cc13-f34ddf68fab5@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 09:34:32 +0200
Message-ID: <020701d55597$60c789d0$22569d70$@leemankuiper.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQIfy2mjUVHj61yfYSQzm4Ru5o3Q/gIey5pWAOfLFGSmU2HTkA==
Content-Language: nl
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
X-Authenticated-Id: freeman
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/SYmCoIOUbAszynloraEKGL8W5uI>
Subject: Re: [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: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 07:34:38 -0000

>> -	Element's minOccurs stays 1 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages get an empty 'envelope_from' value

> This option is easy to grasp, as it parallels SMTP's mail from:<>

After some thought I think this would be the best solution. Not omitting the element, keeping the MinOccurs '1', but allowing the value to be empty for null reverse-path messages. I will adjust Appendix C with these guidelines for now.

-- Freddie