Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #61 - Define and add a simplified (redacted) failure report

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 1:29 PM Brandon Long <blong=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> In today's much more privacy conscious world, should we have RUF reports
> in DMARC
> at all?
>

Forensic reports in DMARC are akin to the DKIM failure reporting we added
to ARF back in the MARF working group.  In fact if you go back and read
those RFCs, an ancestor to the "pct=" tag is there. (RFC 6591 and RFC 6651
in particular are what I'm looking at.)

Back in the original DKIM era I always found this kind of reporting to be
really valuable especially since DKIM can fail for a variety of reasons
that are far less obvious than SPF.  Being able to get the verifier to tell
me exactly what it saw and compare it to what I think I sent was key to
getting the implementation right especially in curious corner cases (any of
you that remember the DKIM interop event would know what I mean).

Seems to me that's still a useful thing to have, at least sometimes.  We
might say something like: Include support for this, but don't have it on by
default.  Or even if it's an extension to DMARC and not part of the base
protocol, it might be really helpful in some situations.

-MSK