Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 25 January 2021 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F7E3A172E for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CUphxpxB4QDv for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8233A172C for <>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:38:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1611599880; bh=T/3VSrmItLMljK7wDsKpXUPqk+HFeazYaxsUL0dYBkA=; l=812; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CKIh+rrs8VdxZZAVZf92ZQITP5NQlfngY6fkdEUvknwa+V4jtH2TmXSs0OdWE+QAj fuDYZItS3R2ilTFs4CEMmHDNQMA4Nc38ps0t00wROm0/goUnS+oxxGFXS5hTsHkTG+ vn5schxXQ33GykGWlugUWg/oVTFoU+/3POV/8CVt5ZpmoLL5prCPFqvU7/0M7
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC028.00000000600F1008.000003CC; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:38:00 +0100
To: "Brotman, Alex" <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Douglas Foster <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:37:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; 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-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38)
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 18:38:04 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 18:59:16 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> I’m not suggesting that we add anything that would report “Signature
> validation not attempted”, that sounds horrible.  Will the original source
> potentially care that the message was signed in three other places as the
> message bounced around?

It can be useful to understand the mail flow.  For example, a signature by a 
Mediator can reveal a mailing list, even if the receiver didn't evaluate it.

> Should we put the onus on the reporting entity to do the filter out the
> non-aligned (what if none aligned) signatures, or just realize it’s some
> automated job and including all logged/validated signatures is the better
> way?

The order in which signatures appear in a report can be significant too.