IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 03 October 2022 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 09911C152560 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:17:14 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=Xs/FHzGY; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=CoGcOJiY
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 5oTWOxQlPQNS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAD9C1524DD for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1664821022; bh=3htUDvdlX0VJYDZt0cX5CKfIKs9bKvOudrTEa03ZekU=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Xs/FHzGYNinW4x5JGFbw8DE9pIBQvdFrMC+56in445mpzAzt1uNGHXm2XFlRBtqBb KEnA7dgfSE6tMqIdKZqCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1664821022; bh=3htUDvdlX0VJYDZt0cX5CKfIKs9bKvOudrTEa03ZekU=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=CoGcOJiYn8b+4aJAYLTYFBwYuU42XtZcS8rhaDQ+iXBigR+3zJ0sBw0WRQDWfOC1I fMoue1xpGJmFgDd1/3c5MpVZhiBEIG9Pmm0zDKK8Udk2bLLqEDTwpTUDdYqyz5lFdE GjnBqblOhdrPdVzjLSAWvySztNtpIc6x/7QJBCrcswzc/y4EYU+Aw/pkxYg4+
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0D3.00000000633B271E.00003CC1; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 20:17:02 +0200
Message-ID: <8ab0943b-9805-1a0e-528d-9cf45f2eaf9c@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 20:17:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <165046214335.10055.16398898629460366752@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYen6n06L1UBqzu9nr2jCC7v_-GOAdJXMzCks6d-AaKqUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfzVt=+yoj280VxL_SV+YM4C7eqMWhL=41YpVybaPmLcLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8mgKjpo6DDbOS9bBdTarThKOa9F55QBtrM6G-oq1YfX+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYjYY4OvShqACWPz0vdJcAubdU1csFFVSkqzsReZSZxuw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43514940B87730CC9D476AACF75B9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAL0qLwb=1CZN6s2QzWJGFeO3=iPWZ-eS=7hvi4B6jhuh+hLJ0w@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb=1CZN6s2QzWJGFeO3=iPWZ-eS=7hvi4B6jhuh+hLJ0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/m2Yi0NfaZ8M8TGzOuwtY1LapdT8>
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 18:17:14 -0000

On Mon 03/Oct/2022 18:01:06 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 10:26 AM Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
>> So we would likely need a section in the core document with a SHOULD for
>> evaluation (if it’s not already there), and then a section in the aggregate
>> reporting for a MUST for reporting on evaluated information (if they choose
>> to send reports at all), correct?
> 
> [...]
> 
> From the actual protocol standpoint, the filtering part of DMARC operates
> just fine if you make the shortcut Doug is proposing, so the first SHOULD
> is probably apt but the MUST is moot because it doesn't change
> interoperability.


Let me add that reporting /all/ identifiers can be unfeasible.  (I, for 
example, collect identifiers to be reported using SQL left join of various 
copies of the table, which delivers results as just that many columns, although 
more might have been evaluated at reception time.)

Reporting just the "most important" identifiers could be an option.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email