IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is there any recommendation to send DMARC message-specific failure reports FROM:<> ?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 25 May 2019 21:53 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 3DAEC120120 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 14:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=dGLNFCpb; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=T/7oRLxO
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 SZg2R2YkZ4Oo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
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 87DA312011D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24663 invoked from network); 25 May 2019 21:53:18 -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; s=6055.5ce9b94e.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=ECUAkO6LzZPVYhFaMaRulMxhymTU+K7VvVijujwytgg=; b=dGLNFCpbf+OQchywuf3Gx/vh+5lLYk71d0APPdsUDeq1UqaRIaAbiUnqqU9gkKvwuBTn9HKSBXVNMkvneEtZhi7exy0dxc1pHfWMJ/hnTtuZdGYPbDvR4VSRDLTzfcjesQKk4SSMoDvydX/NgAQZwiAjFX6JK9zl0JWCJPCgyjvWLRIG/HPPEVaWmUKVychOSNafUs/BRa6E7jkj9pVZCzAqmDiXD+phAOwQ8yKzwGAtDC8xODqMAx27HTccrfud
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; s=6055.5ce9b94e.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=ECUAkO6LzZPVYhFaMaRulMxhymTU+K7VvVijujwytgg=; b=T/7oRLxOfumbTLbcqld7AIBAL2pEqoRDKngmYkSnkGbHon3N5rFWIPrCAGSLbgzmblmETxIVgGG/5tAGOh2t0V2i2RdTahn3xwrUcm9/2GvFjJSdowQur5iUkTS+MFGG3NPHOPORGFx/9aPDRxZHvIRdJTB1JrU49WWkKIb+i+qY2LaA3U6gcHC918355q2yrl+Bt4YLaJF3jvbXzPGE1BakFqbVEGNGhHtlzJKBodw6I7zKUkaVIeyeA2FGrTcw
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 25 May 2019 21:53:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1580620149E52F; Sat, 25 May 2019 17:53:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 17:53:17 -0400
Message-Id: <20190525215318.1580620149E52F@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <20190525183556.Horde.zvg1bNsYbvs_enKZPKjlhVV@webmail.aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/f0uyQeNv-frprowZdLjhewO7EXc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is there any recommendation to send DMARC message-specific failure reports FROM:<> ?
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: Sat, 25 May 2019 21:53:23 -0000

In article <20190525183556.Horde.zvg1bNsYbvs_enKZPKjlhVV@webmail.aegee.org> you write:
>Consider this scenario: an email from a domain, with DMARC policy  
>“p=reject; ruf=postmaster@domain” fails validation.  A  
>message-specific report is sent to postmaster@domain.  The report is  
>bounced (or there is any reply on it) and the reply is again From:  
>that domain and does not validate DMARC.  In turn a new  
>message-specific report is sent and this loop ends, when some disk  
>gets full.  With FROM:<> or NOTIFY=NEVER there would be no such loop.

The trickle of failure reports I get are from addresses like these:

forensicdmarc@seznam.cz
mailnull@segv.crash.com
dmarc-noreply@linkedin.com
opendmarc@hamartun.priv.no
prvs=1020be0dc4=noreply@manthorp.com

I would expect that any mail sent to those addresses is unlikely to
provoke a failure report, no matter how mangled it is when it arrives.

We've had failure reports for almost seven years and I don't ever
recall someone getting into a mail loop so it's not a problem in
practice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email