Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 25 January 2021 20:27 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 19ADE3A188D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:27:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 tCcExqC-10n4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 072DC3A1860 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:27:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611606460; bh=uIiOZ7i9GJCc6YOf4PD/2a3tz4Bk60ztiBGSesZ55Po=; l=382; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AgEL05oU4f/rEmyo18/nQdi4WUNP7RM7nAd2wUv58iC3H7t0n4r7tvkRBtt+5DqaJ Fa+X0ssbuh05OP/Z9hlNi0W0rkybZDjzkYkS3V9WqGgV+HXBhcndGf0KegygHLed9R pnN8o78RAUb8y3PrchPTcVmZFTSScE5IvS6zQUK55vb60/nO7kfUoX4EaMXV/
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: 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 00000000005DC053.00000000600F29BC.00001179; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:27:40 +0100
To: Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <34317129-8225-fb38-4ad3-e1b9ffed21fb@iecc.com> <9c84fa50-d23c-a794-fc62-09788ac383a9@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8mTaFo7aESFk4pHjbqbheriYPoAy6f+HhcE6ASVJSyViA@mail.gmail.com> <df867378-5da0-b912-2a0f-b2081d1f2437@mtcc.com> <CAHej_8kfCC1H89pRjgxXK=+BizJHFdKgnr7Gxh_2wWq8P7L-0Q@mail.gmail.com> <a94cb6c0-0a32-da8d-4bd5-9c7ab2866c82@mtcc.com> <CAH48ZfxkQ9g-gmBOPdDsxr4RDvXOi56EaX=aJVDbuL_g7kR+xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfOB93fpYRjwxgQNkG-ydVHLtvgUp0LLROvv-F-amJVy4w@mail.gmail.com> <b9e8da8e-f46a-49c0-4196-1d50ed94d526@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfPh4kYq0yXhtP9BaPmtP_rc7L-0f=r3Ff_P3oxrhYqvtw@mail.gmail.com> <fd74120f-bfad-ef51-64d7-2f8ec4f00fab@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwaPmMGR48EUhNkmZTozjoiTMnC6Rfmjdo9vLYD6ZhNoAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfMcQ3HCrQAgKWeK-n2Acf+COK+E3HuCauh8g44KiWj=ng@mail.gmail.com> <25ea488b-e432-75c4-c57a-01d03308208c@mtcc.com> <CAOZAAfP5n15=Ez6_SFmkyDOyF=mpD8npZJmJujKP1vw322fGLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <d39eb5dd-f8b2-e263-026f-39cd8f5dc0fb@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:27:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfP5n15=Ez6_SFmkyDOyF=mpD8npZJmJujKP1vw322fGLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/nQq_zBukE93oyYTkLgEBF5DTpdg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:27:43 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 19:02:13 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
> It is likely in scope to discuss if the current text needs to be moved from 
> 7.2.1.1 to 7.1, but let's please be careful to focus on operational feedback 
> and not personal opinions.


I'd leave the MUST in 7.2.1.1.  If moved to 7.1 it should become a SHOULD.

Indeed, it can become a SHOULD anyway.


Best
Ale
--