Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature: r=y and MLM

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 18 August 2018 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C89B130F12 for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 dG98EHujQcwP for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x235.google.com (mail-lj1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (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 467DB130DE2 for <Ietf-dkim@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x235.google.com with SMTP id f1-v6so8896713ljc.9 for <Ietf-dkim@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mm0Xs0FmPQsN1CaPn8DQBecdRN4I4cp1Kyv4qn8fbgg=; b=aQ/mIenK4c4NKLg4M53NvdG20JsHbl9Y6EkTu3QMBSlqn2fTZHd+NThTcEGIlLgeLX Og/13hFfRkPrPJsbT82jSoEoDfOSKJmYc/4xoQPA7DUW6RUn1g/JWNPymXLbT/0AuGjC ZuiPaAiKN5cFtJ7UPjeiRgfE9LzRwBiqJy+bLAc3wvLLZAnJ6cu5oWU1+y7miZk4KGGI 6Bt3fkuqMTPGr2CkLczVhalCor9hHJspaeXYETXKVV+rXKeiFx7daUEhfTkCHSIZUS6b N7+o/T9SccDmZES0dnabxghr5zRoPzlCJ58vH6reoY4yTzEhFhv2Ve7dDvc3IWPBID8j V8AQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mm0Xs0FmPQsN1CaPn8DQBecdRN4I4cp1Kyv4qn8fbgg=; b=IahiTbjeHOp+Wawhz+QvJA0nwEmCuoDXX1zuSQ6uThMxy7zdYcNB8U8TcRgpk7cjsq 3yVthfjf86GC585e5jxv6xxDgBLKKJRDeZwsmhVzKINrcFOSpixm08HlAL4/SWMDAJbW Gp3YwG2zgOmPhAovGbLBsLKtaQ50h5JY/ssX4auRnmW0p8CrDB8gVZh5ryngPRqh3PbT XmL409W9DBKXW+YtY60Ktup2rjx3t/ni/ZGpsmTXkWiEavqdXh1VExF4XP8NB9gnMltv GcFnE6XyvpPl8f6MAczwPCqdbOkqbkFfGLQiKjV6jocC58IRykM5Jkrniwkm1Nr4L00G apMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFDK5FpWMP7lroXTiH6kNccQlXhF4Q5K3Kf1PDDGPKNSQmzXyzs ejmOQSV1zygrdAPLtkhMYa73xnWzn0T1MDp36Tg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwhFmUf+KgWb66/IXdwv1iHuQITucewzKl1ZVCcp2/3k7QzIoSMul3e1kGzKJm6Q3tbg+OfKmr526I5qZ9qkXs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5519:: with SMTP id j25-v6mr29053744ljb.124.1534629392531; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a2e:3a13:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYBqUGT=xJQzBvHodJdAN1Z4_dPk0toeYHsJ_T-hMzghA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180811033840.Horde.i6llD-AtvgzyNIjbhTs-nkS@webmail.aegee.org> <98aff90a-2198-854f-f1e6-85fd704cb7d1@tana.it> <CAL0qLwYBqUGT=xJQzBvHodJdAN1Z4_dPk0toeYHsJ_T-hMzghA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:56:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaMGVdGZh=UgbtG-pqrgZsdCLGViY_+4cHm=YU3Qu21NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: Dilyan Palauzov <Dilyan.Palauzov@aegee.org>, Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdc6390573bcbfe8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/UznGDHtcND1VtsI4-AI6g5sj1s0>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature: r=y and MLM
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM List <ietf-dkim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:56:36 -0000

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>; wrote:
>
>> > The DKIM aggregate reports show whether a server signs correctly all
>> mails or
>> > not.  If the aggregate reports show that this is sometimes (let's say
>> in 1%)
>> > not done correctly, the signer has no way to find for which email the
>> signing
>> > has not worked and cannot fix the signing software, unless a report for
>> the
>> > failing mail is sent with r=y.
>>
>> Well, nope.  Aggregate reports belong to DMARC.  Consider adding a rua=
>> address
>> to your DMARC record.  Sometimes aggregate reports allow a postmaster to
>> pin
>> which message triggered it.  If you also set a ruf= address, you might
>> receive
>> ARF reports as well.
>>
>
> +1.
>

Actually, Dilyan is correct; RFC6651 introduced a reporting stream
independent of DMARC.  I've no data about how widely it's used outside of
OpenDKIM, however, but it's not strictly a DMARC or ARC mechanism.

-MSK