IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sat, 16 May 2020 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 ADEE53A0984 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isdg.net header.b=jIho6XQG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=nslARS6/
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 cudBkGr4MP9L for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (dkim.winserver.com [76.245.57.69]) (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 A48703A0980 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=874; t=1589604422; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=05bn802U12yc5ox/sededuXjlGw=; b=jIho6XQGf7JAPU/Y+NDPwba06/0HRhmOt3PsE7VKiNGC8lVgDe7Yw/JkjID70y 992euDENq6pgj1QpwlSUBu2L7KUw7+a/sUX8gHbU9JZ/NnLF8jd+9tGsJZaWCFl2 dcODoYfVbiP5OEOA+ugLl6hwosCIQNuzEDWwbHnxaV/4s=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 00:47:02 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; dmarc=pass policy=reject author.d=isdg.net signer.d=beta.winserver.com (atps signer);
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 331755326.1.4964; Sat, 16 May 2020 00:47:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=874; t=1589604048; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=QKLFLbW 0TeFl38ApWSrHJiYDwccyQoDuGTiy6xs4uCs=; b=nslARS6/EI/5fBZYKLs1cMu jdJmcgWPDI8UBBnG2L4csDRYl5ab4Vkcl5rkmmBEnKF01acAUUG41rsN5bsbF67+ 7IuNRIDhs+3i13ubgSkczS25qIdGPz47w6d3IkERKP/BCg03myH4gnxdlt+XSXIC 5eI1VUB4mB0iD81s8ohc=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.9) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 16 May 2020 00:40:48 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.9) with ESMTP id 1338121593.3.11268; Sat, 16 May 2020 00:40:46 -0400
Message-ID: <5EBF7049.50502@isdg.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 00:47:05 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/X2K-C6lt3W53xPG0HZlaay74QNE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 04:47:20 -0000

On 5/15/2020 2:26 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/63
>
> A published DMARC record that consists solely of "v=DMARC1; p=none" is
> syntactically valid, but is semantically equivalent to having no
> record at all.
>
>  From an ecosystem perspective, especially in Europe, data has been
> shared showing an increasing number of domains putting in bare p=none
> records, and then claiming that they are implementing DMARC and have
> some layer of protection against spoofing of their domain.
>
> Explicitly making this case invalid would remove confusion from the
> ecosystem, and allow any checker that is up to spec to properly flag a
> bare p=none record as being the same as not having a record at all.
>
> Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address?

No. Reporting can not be mandated.

-- 
HLS

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email