Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 63E763A1514 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:37:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=FY6sX3A3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=W8i0RqLS
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 0LeWbrCp_KiK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 E46253A1512 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 18799 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2021 21:37:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=496c.6008a2a6.k2101; bh=HgyMvcFLtQzavXkRwn+I09MPew09JT5+R8wDOK+wrrw=; b=FY6sX3A303UfB/XUewVasxeRB0uirl3K5h1xPEmnKf/6l5WrFWUtEx3l8NrXHpA6n09DWoSS/w/xm9fk0SN7NCsXtNuMm/LxQ2x1RPaMgymCFl92k3Bplh5Xxzz9WC7+XXIP09vRqEMEtlhY5PAMMEce3J1NwI1K4neB8wkeaK20/DMGYBxT5Tnta1vKhnyThmhNG0YahO8fvv9kn4fZRNL8C75XoEkc/k8zkSsCHNKFVtl4KsLaWyLujp3XADUj/Qj1jyPhF7XAcG/O0751QH9bR2xy7vjS6bxa+6X8NARi+SjpZUTj6w7J2I2xUiLziCS/vscvn0NwKzcbMcQMIg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=496c.6008a2a6.k2101; bh=HgyMvcFLtQzavXkRwn+I09MPew09JT5+R8wDOK+wrrw=; b=W8i0RqLScFOFTL3C6VvIHkV8H0FMbyhjj414R5bddjBYO37MDiryZgJhQh8qMC3/d+nHrKWdoK0q9z8MbctXErGsh1mHGCzYkzxU7+I1qOlEVeVABgensA1QkkyUvv6HbGr/UQSSsOx3T5PJYmIcv0S4jwg6XuXqScP5I+aDH4QceFtQvZ3GoroD4GOFWmYCXvlKJZKAaMBLMG2ecMyJE3Z0ivfAeo42pBaevFuv1FHbHDMAFh7ydkHYnftA8BYT7v4R9qyczXv1rjVNJSY4Kr/nAl3vx6JnDjprM2ojUCtv5SSEEZe+Z6r/iInyoV4hrQxf5iYDsoQEtLSNPveZrw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 20 Jan 2021 21:37:42 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 991976BC1F90; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:37:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: 20 Jan 2021 16:37:42 -0500
Message-Id: <20210120213742.991976BC1F90@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: mike@mtcc.com
In-Reply-To: <78ab729e-7ec5-b154-8e29-b02197933f59@mtcc.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YCu6G9VpxlTlvL9CYbtHIzj-kKk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:37:45 -0000

In article <78ab729e-7ec5-b154-8e29-b02197933f59@mtcc.com> you write:
>A little off topic, but is there any normative text in DMARC about the 
>authenticity of the reporting?

See section 7.2.

 It seems like there ought to be normative 
>text that the report should have a valid DKIM signature from the domain 
>reporting. 

I've been getting DMARC reports for nearly a decade and do not ever
remember getting one that looked fake. What would be the point? I
don't see this as a problem that needs solving.

It's a good idea for your reports to be aligned but only to prevent
useless reports and the failure loops that some people were
complaining about.

R's,
John