IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 08 August 2019 16:50 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 F00B912024B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 73mw0DNPlxTF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7605120290 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1565283033; bh=zKGSShzmQWjdVJD0cImIH4o50B5abdidbTmxpv9Ny84=; l=713; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ACZld0MZgOFY37UPZN64AMwFJIt3jwzMNgW931nW07NGIXLeJIV6pQAXp932+kEf+ FjQVvDUjUnDtnfZeS163I0F4QcI0J/d1rfUCPYMhxxgwk70lAJXXKkujKWIIi+7L7B 4vrXP4z54it0rwDVFOVkvL7ynwbMoCYLSiDjwMFh53bvZuSFaAfhXBWctPUer
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([5.170.68.241]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC064.000000005D4C52D9.00001D36; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 18:50:33 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <00ba01d54ca3$69ffce10$3dff6a30$@leemankuiper.nl> <134ba01d54de8$34b61fc0$9e225f40$@leemankuiper.nl>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <d0d11036-ee07-36ca-cc13-f34ddf68fab5@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 18:50:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <134ba01d54de8$34b61fc0$9e225f40$@leemankuiper.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/U_-2zIDXoRfitHARyIMrOJ_SXbA>
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:50:55 -0000

On Thu 08/Aug/2019 14:52:58 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:

> So how should 'null reverse-path'-messages be processed (in the future)? I see three options:
>  
> -	Element's minOccurs gets changed to 0 and ‘null reverse-path’ messages are added without the 'envelope_from' element
> -	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:<>


> -	‘null reverse-path’ messages are excluded from DMARC reports
> 
> Do 'null reverse-path' messages add any substantial value to DMARC reports?


Not less nor more than the ones having a possibly spoofed reverse path.


jm2c
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email