IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Fri, 15 May 2020 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 1D4C93A005B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=valimail.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 6LJ8VYhmBnyh for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (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 E8FC23A003E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id m12so3255488wmc.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZOh4fXQhoRmAfBJOkAGwXse1O139g8fXuLeN5cyjaNY=; b=YvLkl9QOXUd37gmAE8OziXFIlcMlJ7r+B2+k2NCVN40nCuuMIB/fxKxzHkcRtANmkv c0QMaVb1roD3ZPgJHKIlsE/ofjZOl2bRk9R3ElnF7a7ggyVT9eYfrf4hb/xufrXLJqtl F2WiieYrSm90+1vqyNJUeMC1UR9UJwgAuWOKmPhZk/BLSMWeq0F9mPwgW2rLEaU4D/3B L//JpkNzENU9N+wu5nFg+2ntT1flfnfeRW7dtALiHEKCTtICjoQ+bCbthkHqpI/FQ0FB qoTTvAf7T2Xq7pCxb3BdaCzqYE/aoceG3wh1RBesJYMngGxs3iaWxaxZqU0FORbbJDfl vsow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZOh4fXQhoRmAfBJOkAGwXse1O139g8fXuLeN5cyjaNY=; b=joz1ZYEjn/OeTtBACS+bf3ifWpSMGxMR1Zkr0QxGedEKtmliNF6Mj7jjl56B47HhRi d3pegJjZjntqwuoXz9yuQ86vsuCnX4dKP1kv0iMdN37U5JDKaO7KHaZPzkx9k+ywF/YZ yS2d4x5B8woDTM9H8XzxehB3cgEGQemGoTfxECyg9M4D8sWRDlCLccV5i0e/OY0EXtDT KUfdIBeT3zA6bBNOmdEnW5kD/xePMXQ/oi3F7Vbi/9ifl65rADRmdHJPGgbClPFQ4pp6 9wARu3Se0vaz4qe+x8ObU0lN5OIpj4oI4E+9Le8BbAuS1b7gbWVqpwnVlD+bXTNdEcSk DUQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bDmXzrhDh0T8X8jDt8BtyuQrfPzOdRx8/BCbgTE+tG/T+T4A4 Tic7eOGSQsZtYsblDyrZvt9AI4Rof0miSKzzCuLUN78fRyg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0/HWb7oERymzbtwREozBS+weHvH0ll23brRiQb8cr5D/3QG+1n4rdOHf2IVdiFnWS2AksKbXSWbz52GI5MTc=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6706:: with SMTP id b6mr5055048wmc.54.1589567194862; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 11:26:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfMg4Ss-UVn9fEQb8Jd-bNkxkbyFZQQfxPb8Rq0Nd+EjCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff37ae05a5b3f309"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ubbMv1HrhxG6SeNbs8UdxE_abw0>
Subject: [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: Fri, 15 May 2020 18:26:39 -0000

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?

-- 

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* seth@valimail.com
*p:* 415.273.8818



This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email