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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 01 February 2021 23:21 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 695673A1586 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:21:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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=0.249, 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=iecc.com header.b=HjVQdmb5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=nEm5M515
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 r1bbY3-gKXsZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:21:53 -0800 (PST)
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 D47213A1587 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 85096 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2021 23:21:51 -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:cleverness; s=14c66.60188d0f.k2102; bh=p720LHMkp3BB8Jro63wpf3xOpIz8vUVu7H67cKye6sI=; b=HjVQdmb5ghZs9IXdViYE8is3zNlBVaWj4DS++SD85hCfq0cbcnoaJpsGANxaV1Ps66I5mUL7BCgI/5TptuX2yqeEB/HNfamnby11L9zwtZ4Eetg8beldvgF8UwoRxHyKX6KBaHUnUDn/HNeTK52goqqemkGqmp/K+Xro7bbFSslnBn9FfgrMSaIys4yyyz72Om/BpuYcQE0GlpXtv7exqEyPAlLDjduwJ1w7NAOu9JIPvQ+iBsF2jAf4o6/p4ae1v4PIIIQHZwKNVS0qwS9XvI3njdX/RKX6/4ba/9880Gg6K/SmTuu4Q2AoGzM7izTCRNHOj1/g2c8PQtJr+aWbLg==
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:cleverness; s=14c66.60188d0f.k2102; bh=p720LHMkp3BB8Jro63wpf3xOpIz8vUVu7H67cKye6sI=; b=nEm5M515eAKo/SFAdfHLVAXVStV/jX3LzmgMt0x0kB9aXxJbk2D5tdREZg5IZzpLTJfjlWc47wVcvxFogSkJ5ASSQO7BMBGiI6PFDW5ZA5KYpWRRyKmJ1EE0viteLsl/ESSOrr1k2o63jcBrG/52/oZjro0lfyB+cvn47KiToxlx8Q9gzrSokvcotKrnK7aZXZEZ4LgODEqavVz+YJCMHWriLINxPlrJRvKp2DRNg2ZewqoOvU0P5Sxv3io1NbQ01JwhGPNr1zDCpxOBaSFLuANCBpD2cZT4q19TFiDRRWkHMI2eW6LzEfnSFABb3kjRD4oKLf+ba4cNmWv4dQAZWA==
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 ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 01 Feb 2021 23:21:51 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id E8D346D20989; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:21:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: 1 Feb 2021 18:21:50 -0500
Message-Id: <20210201232150.E8D346D20989@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dcrocker@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <9aea1615-64a5-a310-b8c7-83ec0c316dae@gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/vUcnSU0cfMxvSwBZ74xZCnvkswA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Forensic report loops are a problem
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, 01 Feb 2021 23:21:54 -0000

In article <9aea1615-64a5-a310-b8c7-83ec0c316dae@gmail.com> 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.

R's,
John