IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Neil Anuskiewicz <neil@marmot-tech.com> Tue, 18 October 2022 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <neil@marmot-tech.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 064CDC1526E0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=marmot-tech.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 g11kqy4xwpbJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (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 3030BC152578 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id q9so14522453pgq.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marmot-tech.com; s=google1; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=eWZ/fZXypMoAZbqI/Ja3Oj4wp8Debj8S3yxe78FVt30=; b=KakSFZ+CDQRchb+Aqn0sW0UlaHxiTmOoJ+f0C4Cw+8rGSqRoIiaDNb01eNbNDkrzqD egYOwnK4s1ROfkm2+cHnNdbxEUu/DAwUIKdrA57XZUPldpHOFq4RRFQDQIFUh0q8GGDF sqciS9Cfhjtg2axplLU1t+7NNHun8eA/cNTnT+JTV1AylQ/HRDVR9+PJGnrp4vCHH/k0 a0Ixi2sheLOZTkeSMaPS8OwXRk2mz0DIpvt2WwIUB6dXdfW3svlcbKCTZf4z4rLz3k4v 3IbMwKf97cBQTF27Wwf6sBrwOQXmXofvXj4ozAwOD1zMdldd8KEY278jNHS2uwMkvBXN Oizw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eWZ/fZXypMoAZbqI/Ja3Oj4wp8Debj8S3yxe78FVt30=; b=CQB6sr7cMuSZdEKyNRpVx8uTjsuRrG3DcSyy8A8kVFCtAIPGQGAM8ZCBzduOf6iiiI QAj66cTojiqUT+Zh/7VAB+Z4dlJ6ik+xOw3NPiS5WfFS/6BQvZ+V7vC1/5aCmBOQvpk5 xFRA+tl30MJWAr5T7Ybvj+m4v0U/njrFVYycAvsC5ApaT0YRBnP2S2j1TS6fkn2VEic3 gY+a8qlteji7P8+cy9rSraS3fVgyEYKYZekekIABi0nCbtAo2t1TlqaQ7cBUi1j2Hshf YtRUg2f/gCZvKh96F4ZtCCEyG/W9fZn6LUprMTqWNdzkgWDHqSLPNB3KOzqxYrHbn6F6 hqAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3d7FNqnywtO4AahhXrP/nuxW0ucn9VI+FrIFzSgd8zSau0Qi/4 oaR6S4mARTv0Nn+0tFvHh4rUOqJqsRHrF3XP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7TH/+EjyhmnfRueyuGDyqVesSCtOe1O2yhWEOBJPsTohRHOh877neg+I/4GTwuGo2be9L2IA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6942:0:b0:41c:9261:54fd with SMTP id e63-20020a636942000000b0041c926154fdmr4558133pgc.34.1666131405477; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:1c0:cb02:fad0:b85d:a04a:93eb:2486]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o8-20020a63f148000000b0041ae78c3493sm8469293pgk.52.2022.10.18.15.16.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-E3816995-CEFA-4666-9990-A007D1B17CBF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Neil Anuskiewicz <neil@marmot-tech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:16:44 -0700
Message-Id: <F945F4A4-198A-4D7C-BCC9-F3B5F8FC8C26@marmot-tech.com>
References: <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (19G82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hys8ncmd-Jtx6w6dAXg2BYuK7u8>
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:16:50 -0000


> 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.

Neil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email