IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 568693A0C0E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_BR_BONANZA=0.001, 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 RJF5YONEqNHA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (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 A9FF83A0C00 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 23so6351727oiq.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:34 -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=Oqz4abuvJBQE67kt/05DJXNk7fyGgWUO2ziRrXKmPU8=; b=VnrFeMujN97tVWYyAjx8U72dD/i+hU6dO70MXqBhCCfsQ9Lvgp/p5hL5wSpwP+XurT wK1r4m6lVPKhiPK2erw18JqtPKObSuZQhSfwwgGBlx1NsEeLr5cjkbKo8TgdfQB5A2A+ JY8/KEkyS9LN/ur3xfTP/1duX2cYguOtxaK5zSmPfTEG/kttY53D0YeArhxCGyZaNea4 6yVoa32xC7t4P8gcnpzYuSZef1ep33GdCqPIGT8LAyupKo3uhrr31vrNPxIkXG/iX/Ks C5r54sM+v3AXzVrgm8ZcG1aaxNUCrz/Pykq1F2/81tgSADNz7I3zgCk85tT3f8INIKHC GpmQ==
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=Oqz4abuvJBQE67kt/05DJXNk7fyGgWUO2ziRrXKmPU8=; b=GeGns6Xy56sydQLJXtvwpu/uYNyemWqIAXUl0VnVhJ2Yq0Jip6emuBx/m3qwEkjgus 7Z48u0HB0nGmDIaTnWdi3kdgj1Mv+8Pi5vlJM18tK+QRjgzAYfIY6mAvH6bmI3uS4zmN 9pJYCKX+a09zD+a9YxTwUsAagl4SE/7TBRIgRO4FwCG1PnUNfZvRr0e72EcigpRlrmtZ a1LVOMEK798XAUt2di7gP4rg+eAizUPxXeEgehLqbGygGBnOKpEWYtgWF/YWNL3/5Hgt cRnqL9vn8sWF1wAp06nX2IQ4LKrIXG/7gyAJZ9/qvkeVSI/8wCCXhj7R/meE/gBj6Qby jUjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532M424FLyPeQlHZsP6gkQqEklxDV7xCjr2HLcJwJj0OPReRK5KC ZwIZe+y+KU+EIZ/5Z1DiA36WQIUTGbi602rTykVIQWLF
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVxbUy3l0lWqh0y7liZxtY4u5yMzLYi7u17tR1pfpFqdPZkiFWZ5zbK4UCULqHtLuUplHmtED1QTtmM58fjG4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:518c:: with SMTP id f134mr547833oib.6.1590098253810; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com> <b9e5da13-280e-1bf6-bdd4-185c10fbe396@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <b9e5da13-280e-1bf6-bdd4-185c10fbe396@tana.it>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 17:57:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+EZ2a9ArsYy5UOTjBoXSDcWniNkyzGR-8JUfmG6mFuLtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000938fbc05a62f99af"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/nmu_WGXREo8Ji200BbJ7gNpjyQs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 63: make p=none with no reporting URI invalid?
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 21:57:37 -0000

(with no hats)

p=none with no reporting is fine, and we should keep it.

One thing the WG could do is a BCP document on operational recommendations
where there are certain suggestions like this.

tim

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:37 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Fri 15/May/2020 20:26:24 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/63
> >
> > A published DMARC record that consists solely of "v=DMARC1; p=none" is
> > syntactically valid, but is semantically equivalent to having no record
> at all.
> >
> > From an ecosystem perspective, especially in Europe, data has been shared
> > showing an increasing number of domains putting in bare p=none records,
> and
> > then claiming that they are implementing DMARC and have some layer of
> > protection against spoofing of their domain.
> >
> > Explicitly making this case invalid would remove confusion from the
> ecosystem,
> > and allow any checker that is up to spec to properly flag a bare p=none
> record
> > as being the same as not having a record at all.
> >
> > Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address?
>
>
> No.  A bare "v=DMARC1; p=none" still behaves better than NXDOMAIN, and may
> cut
> the number of necessary queries.  We should instead recommend it.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email