IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 16 May 2020 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 E15963A07D6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=smSDTlfq; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=z4EbmKU3
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 O1AiSv8ylYwS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 E475E3A07D0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 37134 invoked from network); 16 May 2020 01:04:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=910c.5ebf3c00.k2005; bh=+2O7GFKp/lMqg81roGvgSWASf2/2quAVnRi2mSjkaLs=; b=smSDTlfqzz+AfWdvNVuJ9GqbfZ4uAzMTrr8ywC8CZuk/rEfdYLWKUks7Y+Pu3ByM4FXm5IahyEaScILZVU0+VZ4XUUP84TDtNa5gYcq67bE0ci+00MjzEMyevn7OQD7IAV6S4x1+SMsG40jTZSfYMsIei1qS9Ii6y+iqY4rpJS/Q4+KUNNfryBzK/enzRufIBeDG4E8IL6htcU+fCJj2YF5V08p7v4p3O4TsTVoSFwvuvadfWn2YddqoicoXcbij
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=910c.5ebf3c00.k2005; bh=+2O7GFKp/lMqg81roGvgSWASf2/2quAVnRi2mSjkaLs=; b=z4EbmKU37gTtw8tOtu2MT3492zhhMjCyFrbah1yigADL0kryxXMle32k9KtIY8hG63Ccr+6cPum+WgEMzu/tyuv/bQPY9greB2HDQsFCHm+gFfnqkAg/u9TgECFjPa6hCJ0Mzjd/4C6M4WwfvPNAg2E4vijK7cZpewH6QTGA/VIEerZHZuPc4+yzbcS6Xp80icY90/U0wcfj2zburuk3LbumeYn5/zhGiy9PrlDRBX21SjH4WvXqhpFibqwWGGX6
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 16 May 2020 01:03:59 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id A422D195F526; Fri, 15 May 2020 21:03:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 21:03:59 -0400
Message-Id: <20200516010359.A422D195F526@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <3457203.qin9KRflZP@sk-desktop>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tWKkMkxItdEvmjRgtJt_EK5Y08M>
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:04:06 -0000

In article <3457203.qin9KRflZP@sk-desktop> you write:
>> Should we make it invalid to have p=none without a reporting address?
>
>I'll bite:
>
>No.
>
>This is unrelated to interoperability and unlikely to actually improve 
>anything (this reminds me of the occasional suggestions to make v=spf1 +all 
>special for SPF records).

Agreed. If we want to create a profile so people can give themselves a
DMARC gold star, we can do that, but let's not mess up the spec.

Also, I can imagine situations where a plain p=none makese sense, for
some tiny domain that sends out two robotic notifications a week or
the like.  It too little to be worth instrumenting.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email