Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic report loops are a problem

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 02 February 2021 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549463A165F for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:42:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMjx60bekrXu for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17DA43A1654 for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h14so18371881otr.4 for <>; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:42:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=/vD7WoQqjrSg5ZVABfjazd/6amj1T8V1e4HTEE26KYU=; b=kr7ATpz96diwnezt4HZmkFT4q8MdjXtY2s5HoJe3nWN3x7CUsTa2YibRCz6ZMaEQj5 fFIfnPuyixR+WoU0oM1JnCl7YXcGSTABsCyDei2cme308ie/pE51ELq4gC+UKjc/HwnX gHvChjUu20ZJv6LU0Yfjbr1MlfeY9x3p9udZCtT6PfEdq/94o3hQ2GOxZQYizZkIWo8v ynldwqrLDa/6X1i5/io+phwGRkAzC68wkQSfXIJlq6ai9TLU/bHiHg3/ulNXEUNYgWLY Su0lsHFJjO3dTmgjFcAB0+Kic3UnF/lhzgzohShZL4JrKenEClstx/+1LqY+aINP3wuc SnLA==
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=/vD7WoQqjrSg5ZVABfjazd/6amj1T8V1e4HTEE26KYU=; b=rGbv7lp1NnoCSvoIQ4k1RCYwux5xaxpEuRgH1eOsGm25KUsKCcXFrFxbG+wKM61/P4 ciaAcVjg9TPWDa6TmhrMhUDFpNeRKg1vjEhOqdpxxpQK8/qcs0+0+ztoH+WHFYeCxZnZ NFniV3ZjxJZrSOOzP0R9KPzGZU2Z2LPSz/+7TRYN3qQsBO2rGNJ0xgo0phLC6yG1d9VK QAnTplg66n7ubq6HPCB1cJlqmNcGouJRqaLddvS89okGuF82kCQJ5bqhY6tVw6hgVC/v Tbx4aeFRXDkHuQb2rVyERcb+h4o7EzuyiTAAB5UsCPisFVHivsXTnuiNLKM9a3oEX/4e MPaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IEBhfFeBZirHXvzv5vURsXP159stvlLGGTR7rU53yQpJsW5qg beyGcQQ64/SIywaj6rMU4Klt/52DuGo3SQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9eN11ov/1Qf2z5mI0j9t+vxY0RR1Rlsf/tvrbLy+YUhmsST8ffxY1yB7p1PFRSL/fbWCJiw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1dc8:: with SMTP id a8mr13856852otj.26.1612230148351; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 33sm4255319ota.69.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:42:27 -0800 (PST)
To: John R Levine <>
References: <20210201232105.1931D6D20971@ary.qy> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:42:25 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC'ed reports, was Forensic report loops are a problem
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 01:42:30 -0000

On 2/1/2021 5:38 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> So I would say that from my small sample, a lot of people have figured 
> out how to send aligned reports,

and, to be thorough, some/alot have not.

> either by using their regular signing engines or with an SPF record 
> for the host that sends the reports.  On the other hand, for reasons 
> we've discussed that are evident to anyone familiar with DMARC, 
> there's little reason to worry about fake reports, and authentication 
> doesn't help even if there were.


> If we want to document existing practice, I guess we would say that 
> reports should be authenticated and aligned if practical, but it's OK 
> to send them if not.


Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross