Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem

Michael Thomas <> Tue, 02 February 2021 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8248A3A15D9 for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:09:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qBkA-8Qt7vmh for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27C33A15CB for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e12so2060339pls.4 for <>; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:09:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=H36NMxLtOqjt3PhFhZ8qPrSoxlhyIwrJ0xudXsBmfxs=; b=X8QuiIQukQdfHVMVGf75toM47ZwVezAWFHWqdtFN2tRJRW7vWE/eZFLLvsJH4lf45I QOZ/Bloan9bgqHa53lAY7uMxiP1whEtAuUao9djmITayLs+GXBfpDpQajOi+cby1vLWJ 2dpxRMreFchzHaK0PhiPPQNH4ATbBIZ2Q/0KEZdj3Il/9NqN7N11kWrSSomuCoCyxGHV scwAWAoyKpcRRtCAlTIxRsbuwVlWFEyRq7NP5X4I6zSDEs/+Tr6WyVcgIa1YKd2ifxrj np0B2cv5HbQiL6CNisBA7SrryTyGdIzD7tLLLveR52n9xrqVeJqX6I7U1n42oeiksP2B Cr3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=H36NMxLtOqjt3PhFhZ8qPrSoxlhyIwrJ0xudXsBmfxs=; b=B7gLAV7a4set9DMDK0Dzgj71ve6ijA1qMIA2C7Or2MLA0t2ahIAc1RJjkmT3FpJLDk cbNEdUuRp3E2U0s7bnCP0VnjiTP88N0OWUsNMhBBSDzRrQ71K/esSSUF7h8DPyYnu5FP uwHByUFH4pSHhm4joCvhXNROKp47TFQRHgHmoKIzlo9glDURPggru6ZhjhznR7p+I219 DIDD2FKCbltAcSO6IsmY/g5iizawDXewbHFOxWaAEjeZwOt3EslREn87bEU3ioK6sQTL 5Rk79uxeNbqqtI/jeQlplyrcXKDosBMoGaiVXXfP2/SK1bUXiXYxppa9c1nnzPbmoTTA zvCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307NTlvxu0GEffE2NRgtG9Kv9w4/YDs29ZGVApxSRqM8gZkERHt h/gd8jS8jxS4t3tJR9ZcJM3ZYOaKJMaz+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxl7L8iz2F0FqPxPlAoHS3iNSNfyM3zP4sEl8IRgI2N5rKn9Kcwy+uiRBtF4kEDZnnXBKyxvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9f8b:b029:e0:425:b856 with SMTP id g11-20020a1709029f8bb02900e00425b856mr20141792plq.82.1612224584790; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id np7sm542242pjb.10.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:09:44 -0800 (PST)
References: <20210201232150.E8D346D20989@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:09:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210201232150.E8D346D20989@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:09:48 -0000

On 2/1/21 3:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> On 2/1/2021 10:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> On Mon 01/Feb/2021 17:38:07 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>> Consider the challenges to ensuring a DMARC pass.  That's a pretty
>>>> high barrier to entry against generating reports.
>>> Well, if a mail site is unable to get a DMARC pass, they have more
>>> urgent problems to solve than setting up aggregate report generation.
>> No, they probably don't have more urgent problems. Sites choose not to
>> adopt DMARC for a variety of reasons. It's probably a good idea to
>> respect that variety.
>> The model that a receiving site is not allowed to report DMARC traffic
>> unless that site is also generating DMARC authentication is
>> Procrustean.  And as I noted, is likely counter-productive.
> Ah, we have a semantic question.  I consider a message with p=none to be aligned.

This is why that paragraph needs to be made a (sub) section stating its 
motivation and done in terms of what the requirements are on the sender 
and the receiver of the report. It has nothing at all to with the DMARC 
protocol. That's what I tried to clarify in #98.