Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help

Michael Thomas <> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D723A16E3 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 EANelKeFfZYV for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043533A16E4 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p15so81219pjv.3 for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=OLObngR+qWtgTlJX5qCePd1tdJzc6DJiPBoQrRaUavE=; b=DcnDIMWDgCwkw/281AJwN+Nt4Tm93kEpRxIvA8TCTslNB0Zd3LLp1XEDKcN4sfJWEo DyjKAac3dwbVKhuzkOTVF5lrS7EVFrmexFVyx7dfvGjlyQdLavGaKxrhfbLcjrgP//9s 0yI+D4N+hAGcoj6YgiTJIPNiFIyBwB60sVs9l2wYojlV9KIjC+K1JPw2sjMRNcWz92vA c7DrI7hn6GeQlSdC5LDDKFG3i9Xs+fX83vSYpYpa0/dkPOz9ZnAwxpmvZDoR4f2zK1pa QD8/eQYFWijA6oM4kzDrCcKYFddSbSSin2yGGxNDhUv2B1x7zM83HoLYE0pSA2T/jd75 OpDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=OLObngR+qWtgTlJX5qCePd1tdJzc6DJiPBoQrRaUavE=; b=Yvc+2qA5wTvSHqEySAvA/eVZrCXQfKekgc/k7YO/j8HftMSavybmzGmIA/liB4rF/6 HIAgR5zmIrZvXF6ePsx+A//x0UA0wediQmtdrp6Z/9iIjQGLtxAgaZ8Ynz8v6KNaHA2p zf2q5ovrY/r0NvFtdSzSfzF3pLA3AgqIJB1qc0CMGRPIr8VRCim8j14IdrHZDxUwouzk pHe85LGzvY1vhXXvCFM31tTkibGhhriTrDBa0K2pci4zUOBhumZIQF+WBUeI848IvMJ/ VmSzY0R0boPV6ncn1aBASGKL8W6j+jpTpiGDVa8/a8TTPrJoc8H+1AE91xulBxeRg/aH Icvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yVM5S7BU989VVABLqIFEMqWpaYQEsfXwtv5V+K5RhBIEikrkF xGLBYzEO8dPvoKp6zrgOyqiQ8Q8isPJJTw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSde5WXMJ6/+KXhxnJOji5lDYLVHc8B9lVQA+2qRDXqW3R2FW4wCn0alDebKtbEtI6NDs2Fg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ab8e:: with SMTP id n14mr1416975pjq.96.1611598240254; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x81sm17369056pfc.46.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Seth Blank <>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Douglas Foster <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:10:38 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tickets 98 and 99 -- fake reports are not a problem and if they were authentication would not help
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:10:45 -0000

On 1/25/21 10:02 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> Michael, are you aware of anyone not following the guidance in the 
> document? This thread feels like we're discussing a non-issue. 
> Aggregate reports are already required to be authenticated and I'm 
> unaware of anyone sending failure reports, let along unauthenticated 
> ones. Is the language causing problems? Such problems have not been 
> brought to the list, and would be a good place to start if you want to 
> build consensus.
> The list seems to be digging in because no one has raised a use case 
> that shows a need to revisit the text. This was made worse by 
> asserting that reports must be authenticated, when the text already 
> makes that clear.

Obviously it isn't that clear. I looked for it and didn't find it. 
Several people just asserted that it wasn't a problem instead of 
pointing at the relevant text requiring it. Murray didn't seem to know 
about it either. That tells me that the current text is not specific enough.

> Ticket 99 is still in play, if and only if we decide on adding an 
> HTTPS transport for DMARC reports, of which historical consensus shows 
> this is unlikely. Let's press pause on that until the other discussion 
> is concluded, please.
This entire thread was by way of John Levine's proposing text for http 
and me responding about how to authenticate it. If you have a problem 
with that, take it up with him.