IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 12:39 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 1EC3A3A0A74 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 FlcJk2T_P1KM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (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 C48893A0A83 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id y11so3354548qtn.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A/oasbhdr+JMube/2olDWKsd1TqN/7Yg+QFwwiHD6h4=; b=D9RnvaoBUhAZ+AfFrgEanbayGEi5Dq/H/+Qg5OQnBgCv5X2PpsQNlVA8EX8y/tgBNx K94DJW5emxN7HehjG9E18rz0MtZxTszuSM49bhID1ttMKwR2QXe3dih7i3xd2RRchFrE DrdlyeXyND8tncaJSq78nhzyKbgw/ztRyuhyf6Ta0VE6N+y1+E10WRh3IZ/5vFSnnf1j H3eK+gEXkViTGkgEPCU16xpIUMef2LltBf3So5GEU2dVr2PTwDsqgxwcXZ4oA++79nR/ maqf5km50MxKj8Zk0zA7T0+j493X6QtAKxpy36RWd0/IlZKVPUWUuroboSyWTcuSBXGn Y+Ug==
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:cc; bh=A/oasbhdr+JMube/2olDWKsd1TqN/7Yg+QFwwiHD6h4=; b=HQ7YeaXruOtv3wLIbzlg8JSM7ta7nh9eOXDNd38Q16a7z58/dG7NgrGq7nMRlNuZyr gS/aRmqmng60Qu3PLPglUsY/UxuGSUbMSgao+7+XxQy505JxO5NF9pZXq/Ml31nWCA1Z 6qUT0V7euALOtI7XObHjKRSz2oMZgjtZQVverfm8eJukWIeoE0QKh6kCRLXSlpP8oDsV 3w1ZSjgiWYecvX7/KuEfhSk4newx28mDndHuVR5Fz7D75xq3iMd5e/gICZx2/fgRinRI twBhDAbMiH61N/AD0l/BgtBjLnX5iejNFK7IQPtGfYb3xzfysGJlieUKxgKJ718NYlOv yVaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rthaOG7Ye75jT3CegzbuU3bwTvNeRiHuP7t2PQYyDEj4OEJpf bgEBouuS9yLRkQ6nPSjROEBXp8KBFHPCcLWVx20=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUb0Fm666sAHz1IVcp49G/pMntRRS7+9HbdkHpRxywgP7cgMLPBET5oMF/+Coz0PU9Nk3j4VuN68L2SHuSMIU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5317:: with SMTP id t23mr3164109qtn.354.1601383149864; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:39:09 -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>
In-Reply-To: <10f0dc9f-ba9e-1a64-39f6-1d98baef582d@tana.it>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:38:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYceTCZVW18GoU4ogczZROwP5vSY87ehN9Q0GPNUVi83NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc0bd205b07311bc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gxkBmJwMGskhidHqcRYVw6iiGPE>
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 12:39:12 -0000

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 6:15 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Tue 29/Sep/2020 05:40:13 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
> > I'm hearing consensus that an aggregate report should retain a
> disposition
> > of "none" when the dmarc policy is "none", but when the policy is
> > quarantine or reject, "pass" should be used to disambiguate the use
> cases.
> > Further, there's been one suggestion that even in the case of a policy of
> > none, if the mail passes an aligned authentication check, the status
> > should be "pass".
> >
> > Are there any objections to the overall consensus, or further commentary
> on
> > the case of an aligned pass with a policy of none? +1s are also welcome.
>
>
> +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.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>

Another +1

Michael Hammer

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status