Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic report loops are a problem

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 02 February 2021 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 710363A0C93 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 VS3ieFs44A4P for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6A03A0C8F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id k142so9132630oib.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 09:24:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=cYzrd39I7eSRGGxrIf303+JS0d8DoSU7TNEiIl2Kfks=; b=X5HocYyROzDl28SRzYWS1cogF6rsp0SpMczY+HEg+gW/vQ2pv1EyX64HFWBfQNdJll ZquRfzMvuFZRmPG+kWUmAjAb2wsQ+C6s/9sFOb9gZzudDHkjuSXP7qrl9kvT0M0LXnED +MElNXwBPFf0Cvfdbba/0vyy3EKiMBIMWxaH+0rEaTyLM5fBcvJ6qCdjtcC46OkenR8D NRhFjHFI2EfbQkOxIkwcbBPDnKFdi16FYQyjEZAae0tHNow37Nfo/b/4E6XcDYHZxPDy oB5ndHOSQ5Qgn7rko4eyYHeVYXAZ9+Ug/klFD4+vJ3PMNkQOHQL2YDH4LUb0kkxRSO+c PoFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=cYzrd39I7eSRGGxrIf303+JS0d8DoSU7TNEiIl2Kfks=; b=dpT5k5B7mwieZzKnFnBp9tB9C9HZb2kIFNDeLkmCxFPt0q+yZf9zv5uZ/qGhB81FDJ QB48ECjnj3TRifwsyM8C59U+sKcHR2FLJk5W73cv+BthblSUBvfK7MwZQuM0YDR7M9wL mXX7QCFqoiuX5eDgV1VScYSNZDY0mhfOeIHC/pw6nyQdL1GxbHHub8EZgXqSLTqcvrzz dnrfO8FeUu3JlnDGXFtPjb///hJsMRrHLf9hWG5FMyg3GwIhZ5gNvJJTWetXDICbN2hG fcsbU2NREkhcHvt/RHHBpdeqSxqjGieZ46WOLjXDiJl8Dr1qHDV+hRTKU5L5AX9izmlY Zu3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qsYEL+m7zEz5PzDgYWYWIVbrRjw+g5PqPXsRr8C0gLNsmBw6e 8fRWRz0FymOMr7eUFXJIEMV6WV5BIB1qyA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymTPyVKGrK8rNgJOiiNMs+luvVutuKVkNgtgekMiH9zwh0kay99A/0+Nuix2xcURoKbb75zA==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:a98d:: with SMTP id s135mr3475423oie.136.1612286674089; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 09:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [108.226.162.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l3sm4842074ooa.12.2021.02.02.09.24.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Feb 2021 09:24:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210201232105.1931D6D20971@ary.qy> <41163cd5-be81-6fd7-07dd-7a474874429e@gmail.com> <92b361a1-d9a5-9389-46b-3725d885c02@taugh.com> <b83c7574-3aa9-bd39-1a9b-3be6fa4f47ec@gmail.com> <1021a8e4-ca5f-5fb3-2661-b4668b4bafd5@tana.it>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0fd34931-e3c4-e5a5-3cb2-cb82697f50e6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:24:32 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1021a8e4-ca5f-5fb3-2661-b4668b4bafd5@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZNItgOcMkweHCYrCBlhj-_a9rIk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic report loops are a problem
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:24:36 -0000

On 2/2/2021 9:19 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Tue 02/Feb/2021 02:42:25 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 2/1/2021 5:38 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>
>>> If we want to document existing practice, I guess we would say that 
>>> reports should be authenticated and aligned if practical, but it's 
>>> OK to send them if not.
>> exactly.
>
>
> I changed it again, for failure reports, like so:
>
> 3.3.  Transport
>
>    Email streams carrying DMARC failure reports SHOULD conform to the
>    DMARC mechanism, thereby resulting in an aligned "pass".  This

"conform to" seems odd wording; it's not immediately obvious what it 
means here.

Perhaps:

  SHOULD provide DMARC-based authentication, to produce their own 
aligned "pass"


> requirement is a MUST in case the sending host has a DMARC record

'sending host' is ambiguous in this context.


> featuring a ruf= tag.  Indeed, special care must be taken of
>    authentication in that case, as failure to authenticate failure
>    reports may result in mail loops.
>

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org