IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 19 October 2022 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 34A0BC1524C8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=XLCuGs8n; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=kEaHlKNi
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RdI5DmSPRyV9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0475CC1524C4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE0DF802EC; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 23:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1666149481; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=YE7AMK4m0rl9+e53e5/mcJxfJyt0HvC1YKEKUfEbCTs=; b=XLCuGs8n5WuDYogDJlKYFWnvowO6deIxah0Dyg3tUA1jHxxBzX36jsVU3Y9YzGq0mz3+E 97TiOzuYH6A8ZOGBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1666149481; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=YE7AMK4m0rl9+e53e5/mcJxfJyt0HvC1YKEKUfEbCTs=; b=kEaHlKNisUAqxmX/XFdSTNrKc5sVwkT1x0tbuBxsQaWq2J/EkEHiZwYkD6rh3LVnd4H8a zP1h8x6Zwcnwy6JJZYvemNpv9Rx+xzeHZtnOTy9ctsnf5NXe61u+51P4i/VwMDcZVkMK06i 1wR0Ad6VFggyZCXkrVLwgE1WtIrdqCKl78BJgfe4ZuXJoWTW82hwdAL9iAVVuY+1cl9aNKr M7A9vFeGMn51Bq1hISsqo+rUjEEPJ44qnCw6Oxbk7L/V1u2x2R142Ljri43sAS9rk9NQRvS ZfyOSpKaGTsr0iofcdxhWmaZjfz9CsdpK2hOj18nvjQRTSagYJGgC91sFGNA==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 532BCF800CF; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 23:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 03:18:00 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F945F4A4-198A-4D7C-BCC9-F3B5F8FC8C26@marmot-tech.com>
References: <CAH48ZfxZOq68=P-Qxjvjk1c8PxWAWDvaBPPQcb4DWmd6cL=u4Q@mail.gmail.com> <F945F4A4-198A-4D7C-BCC9-F3B5F8FC8C26@marmot-tech.com>
Message-ID: <3AEAC3A6-23A5-416F-B362-9B19CEF90F68@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/vdvQYEqAXz-r3yiF1vaffxkFiSk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Aggregate Reporting - "Not Evaluated" result
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 03:18:11 -0000


On October 18, 2022 10:16:44 PM UTC, Neil Anuskiewicz <neil@marmot-tech.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 2, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In many cases, an evaluator can determine a DMARC PASS result without evaluating every available identifier.   
>> If a message has SPF PASS with acceptable alignment, the evaluator has no need to evaluate any DKIM signatures to know that the message produces DMARC PASS.
>I think it’s critical to DMARC that receivers do things like evaluate and report on DKIM whether or not SPF passes and is alignment. Without this, it would make it harder for senders to notice and remediate gaps in their authentication. Since there’s not a downside (that I know of), I’d say this should be a MUST if at all possible.


What is the interoperability problem that happens if evaluators don't do that?

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email