IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 51: disposition reporting in aggregate reports

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 7733E3A1242 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=valimail.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 bkFFyz5rj1pK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (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 685073A1240 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id t10so7158293wrv.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xMEpsCeOqIZQJvQXLIsW7+EQ39m2kdJNij2CBTbjvrM=; b=F77NF5KJHQv+alz7PxpKDtmUGcYtUqaFXVE4t3FpMnDHFMFeFWB++NZhfEYDf3Zfvn N/8Z8mIR3Se6SO0T2fnQcKBqhtG06PRdC4kCz6kEGbZnF63G8TOAWN+KF9A2PNWXe1Xj Hj9lBS+Q9E2gZagr/Sqk2+l2Ij1rQiP4osDJUSiVLjUwazo2mkLA51mOK8I5zDf9hq4R 0HxUxB7UK972epkL8IV6vZAlcVxN++irRVvycYQ0J2mQvGZBdehTQo5+6uolNNk4KfUO hzrLSjoVmKQsAJ2XTed6Q5B28IdNwgF4O8UP0QPOWF30fuPsa+uriARBtewyvSqfLOcw sUKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=xMEpsCeOqIZQJvQXLIsW7+EQ39m2kdJNij2CBTbjvrM=; b=Imvh4yNrd3piPLJ63gYAGMoxjx3/lpCpLzKwh9j4/+dJQWQ+oZTbJH+E0WN7eajLaF +GrP0c/7H+A2jpLCxsNZvXcS+IVyE754XlEmw3s8VQS+fsZCWgSOGB6c65UhnEe70+KU szo7nFb1hW8k4Wo4xBcdpDiG6yTHSc74KhuwQ2T2J0x8TiifMxkxMFWLW0BZpitqpZM+ qkNGqgUBo0M10MZvalCphdaP9B2dHYv5YE/W43ggqI9OQhDVKUUNrcxZG0OnsDB8A303 k0Y68M/NYBWgRGiBoEVTIPvZRaLXyiLkHz7KwwL3XzsLtXTHmaVjQFt+89dC9P1ikBmc sgSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KZYvW8lZ39+94unDf80uC2uw8/SQ8yvcdVFWASbr7U2VFv/kI N112uo20HlLl8wJTcwtyQmoXMViI/5zBpDWN4YOiVyzC1L4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUC57H7a4ejro6eXJFTskhLgrgiTpQLF5gv6U6GgFVer6Y0RTzgMAhfnY3tr89bnEtfChkdisQc/l9q4caEY8=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:df87:: with SMTP id z7mr6777953wrl.239.1601417326436; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfPVicBggPbctta9w-v5G2cHxMtuUwB-stu+0-KB85hCiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZOb00dKfQu5Uraigb3SiCBXwtzhRg5bh9sWv==yBw9pg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1q2oxYq_1ReGzDFj+iRRhsmw=tLuZORxSTXs1Zv4eHqbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfMz+eTkVW6Nytpsa1-GaXL3GuULwdrG9so=ybjXo+aS4A@mail.gmail.com> <10f0dc9f-ba9e-1a64-39f6-1d98baef582d@tana.it> <CABuGu1rCKFSENSEwuW-f1S0MvZxyBZGSAdz5G6NsatgEvgfZog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rCKFSENSEwuW-f1S0MvZxyBZGSAdz5G6NsatgEvgfZog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:08:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfPbRi4u-vpUtMXZM618+uH4w9teUPQKWpvTTCKTZn86jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e13af405b07b06a4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_O-X4sC3xJR3tqH-wKyrK1Qk9O4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 51: disposition reporting in aggregate 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:08:50 -0000

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:15 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1.  The rationale, AIUI, is that if the receiver successfully evaluated
>> alignment, then "pass" is fine.  If the receiver didn't evaluate anything
>> after
>> it saw p=none, then "none" is fine.  <dkim> and <spf> should agree.
>>
>
> If a receiver does not check alignment, then "none" would be the right
> report, regardless of DMARC policy in the DNS record. (One could argue for "
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" instead of none, but I don't know how interoperable that would
> be)
>

As an individual, I don't know of any receiver that checks DMARC, but then
doesn't check alignment if the policy is none. Is that above actually a
real world use case that is understood? Perhaps this isn't clear because of
the use of "none" as a status in the first place...


>
> If DMARC is fully evaluated, including alignment, then "pass" would be
> better.
>
> --Kurt
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>


-- 

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* seth@valimail.com
*p:* 415.273.8818


This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email