IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2022 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 6194AC14CF16 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5SidyjruHxk for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6FACC14F733 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id l1so17104196pld.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uKzNLrWSyYIkdTmp3+t1aU+uE9Pjf5M99VyeItO39rk=; b=RpbSZ5+KKvRLiAD6nxvsJ7k6x+Fd3ybXvHmj4IpKdoDv+vK92/VtJ5tVmy2BjYp9Rc DsvmaNEPldnXluGvjJul6h6bBleFiGY3fUQQnJTtQKTqNg5jG8o91yiEndXkE/1eqN5a ADpaSpw7ntLeS4kthzWZ/Wuy0is6IqMzN//2nfWx6HWgIeV4naR5eNeRPiisPo8XcVwS 5hv1RLpnEiX6qH4Xx2p8AFQQxt5X2TY3Jaoq6CKu3IiPYLmbPL1MSp+49u9e2Tevx1F8 Z9VJo2waM8QL8jQ8sYmQVETN5eZ4FssT3W2bQY3tRbEg3C7gsUUU7a+pzMzt3pnTGv6y 3hGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=uKzNLrWSyYIkdTmp3+t1aU+uE9Pjf5M99VyeItO39rk=; b=cosZlv7iL3jP1GIFDwulF5wlVT2dqmmfMaKF97Va91Pdbf6/cYsh4ovNOpayPrMZ2I 9m9odlBtls63Nnlb4NQhszSCcdOU86TApTSnSlvrYZbewUErT/3RvpNxSg4SGHmqUEJc eJVqwFkye2J3tQH3c9xFolOLQs4+b56Z/KBAuto6gsLAiBHIjuXKAKCAxs04/0aKK+HH cNcIGHBita35Ddj28rrudbDbOKy7gctASYxOcY+Akkryta7RL26YxuextrYVVYrJmiX3 xT8mnjzZWs1v9rj1McDJomlkBqbHaXHgr86nuWYdM+D+nWYpPDvKe0DdTfsQyY/LFg7f DQmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf05FdQrmqA+tvIgPX8UM+s/SN0ziw2ZhL+t3pv/zsYbUVQEXrIh VWdOx/0HEQaTa+vWeOOaBjfzwAl/ujAGpX3CuN/CdH4A
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM41DchXhLwYrohiCM8vh70hHbK90N/uRhGv0CMqbKxZAwePdxB2ExmwZa3qT+Hso4zcXiQE3ZvHm2uHljXZTbs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1110:b0:178:9f67:b543 with SMTP id n16-20020a170903111000b001789f67b543mr8336389plh.131.1666183474362; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 05:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com> <F945F4A4-198A-4D7C-BCC9-F3B5F8FC8C26@marmot-tech.com> <3AEAC3A6-23A5-416F-B362-9B19CEF90F68@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AEAC3A6-23A5-416F-B362-9B19CEF90F68@kitterman.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:44:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYf_fCOciUPtgUVtFptB7uMvJ69MJmWjtiw4VRiy5o08JA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ec27d05eb629244"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/a_iax6kL9uVsjY_JwTVAOqiPCZQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 19 Oct 2022 12:44:35 -0000

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:18 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On October 18, 2022 10:16:44 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz <
> neil@marmot-tech.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 2, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> In many cases, an evaluator can determine a DMARC PASS result without
> evaluating every available identifier.
> >> If a message has SPF PASS with acceptable alignment, the evaluator has
> no need to evaluate any DKIM signatures to know that the message produces
> DMARC PASS.
> >I think it’s critical to DMARC that receivers do things like evaluate and
> report on DKIM whether or not SPF passes and is alignment. Without this, it
> would make it harder for senders to notice and remediate gaps in their
> authentication. Since there’s not a downside (that I know of), I’d say this
> should be a MUST if at all possible.
>
>
> What is the interoperability problem that happens if evaluators don't do
> that?
>
> Scott K
>

Scott, What is the interoperability problem is evaluators didn't provide
reports at all? Reporting isn't a "must" for interoperability but it
certainly helps improve outcomes instead of senders flying blind.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email