Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 E10F93A152B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, 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=mtcc.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 kx8bAF2Wva6m for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (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 BBFA93A152A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id lw17so3755622pjb.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=XHlmb0bll8e/DG7O3Y3X2A5y2giprFi1K8IGCxX7sUs=; b=U79t6/DC6jlrenoqTCZycsyHjf1zEHbm18N8B/tanDPRyqDRKVkH1L7VYNEoy9KA4P /MvtrV2dOG0emtt5bMtw4YPR9UVcS6fmZLmLMrWwfYVKNrq7wV0ER80qaHUHGdKxLj/i MVz+x2IfwUWmcglAu1e6Yc1hbBYl/WTSWZFAL3CAsgjkSS1xwhwf9s7LC+v72XOdSg80 O2ixdOR2jA6s1bh8tTtATdgbvR0v77+dEwBsrY+xsbv9FiPGT56ZP0fRG/w4ig0NGz5W amY7xeBkabnCUAkxTjOcSMhWtQz51Nog5SX1kh0ZwfHjdfW+xX0x+oAp2265dSb3NmO7 qQ1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=XHlmb0bll8e/DG7O3Y3X2A5y2giprFi1K8IGCxX7sUs=; b=AkJ4/huw2B1FsQTmNwpGX1oAWvyCyWReRqb1pKBw/kmyxFYRqFgygsoZPbcocv9lks sgl7Fd7IpgfsOd2eViBvzvE6CVnsglNxMr2Wrfliw6WSRzJeP4IGGRI/20t7BjzFOezN ulLgbVFDgoKYfjGIpnR4sTJAdaOXYUUagBs8LOdTR1c4JlR0w68ndqK5+H/W+eo+0iNJ kgL9JgpJly5Z+M6RKf2QdO/sl2AVCe4oyr7yMzqmmxjY64pC9tYPqYA8mZPECrkXcwse xuETx42jbf7TDElwbW2OVQDLQOjCJlnzJ2C2lNsohX7YfP/3MbrOXTuETBYQN0+zgBlO LQ0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Tn0Y8X1WiCOxoAo9/2aUUGgKnptqeWS++2Me1OHxvDVAnJy5p q/G1Lf8VYjzpa0beBDYMyQZjXkc5xWiLYA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyXdXsvMRwY28Ob/kSheess7j+u2hViHQ1T5txIzMF9GThJL6iRQtm5NW/1E6bNlVfK47p8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d48f:b029:de:8c5b:656 with SMTP id c15-20020a170902d48fb02900de8c5b0656mr11805473plg.51.1611179489470; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-35-22.volcanocom.com. [107.182.35.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j14sm3261429pjl.35.2021.01.20.13.51.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:28 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210120213742.991976BC1F90@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <1cb8436f-fd22-e215-9620-9540c28e8321@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:51:27 -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: <20210120213742.991976BC1F90@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xkJo5LvK9y0I9z4jE_Ud7yLYP6Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:51:32 -0000

On 1/20/21 1:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <78ab729e-7ec5-b154-8e29-b02197933f59@mtcc.com> you write:
>> A little off topic, but is there any normative text in DMARC about the
>> authenticity of the reporting?
> See section 7.2.


Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

>
>   It seems like there ought to be normative
>> text that the report should have a valid DKIM signature from the domain
>> reporting.
> I've been getting DMARC reports for nearly a decade and do not ever
> remember getting one that looked fake. What would be the point? I
> don't see this as a problem that needs solving.
>
What could possibly go wrong has an extremely poor track record. In the 
case of email it's an easy fix.

Mike