Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 3 years ago
@kboth+ietf@drkurt.com set component to dmarc-future-notes
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed component from dmarc-future-notes
to dmarc-bis
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from new
to accepted
@todd.herr@valimail.com set owner to todd.herr@valimail.com
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Current text reads as follows:
fo:
: Failure reporting options (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is "0")
Provides requested options for generation of failure reports.
Report generators MAY choose to adhere to the requested options.
This tag's content MUST be ignored if a "ruf" tag (below) is not
also specified. The value of this tag is a colon-separated list
of characters that indicate failure reporting options as follows:
0:
: Generate a DMARC failure report if all underlying
authentication mechanisms fail to produce an aligned "pass"
result.
1:
: Generate a DMARC failure report if any underlying
authentication mechanism produced something other than an
aligned "pass" result.
d:
: Generate a DKIM failure report if the message had a signature
that failed evaluation, regardless of its alignment. DKIM-
specific reporting is described in [@!RFC6651].
s:
: Generate an SPF failure report if the message failed SPF
evaluation, regardless of its alignment. SPF-specific
reporting is described in [@!RFC6652].
Jim's comment about there being no utility for the colon-separated list resonates with me, because each value either conflicts with another or is redundant.
0 - conflicts with 1, s and d, because you either want all or you don't 1 - redundant with s and d; overlaps with 0 s - redundant with 1 d - redundant with 1
If and only if there's ever a time when there are three or more authentication protocols underpinning DMARC, then it might make sense to support a colon-separated list of the letter values, so that the domain owner can request reports about failures of, say, DKIM and X, but not SPF (d:x).
Text to cover that eventual case might read:
Failure reporting options are shown below. The value of this tag is either
"0", "1", or a colon-separated list of the alphabetic characters shown in the list.
but even that would be borderline silly for the current condition of just two alphabetic options, where d:s would be the same as "1".
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed _comment0 which not transferred by tractive
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed _comment1 which not transferred by tractive
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed _comment2 which not transferred by tractive
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from accepted
to started
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Changing relevant text to this:
fo:
: Failure reporting options (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is "0")
Provides requested options for generation of failure reports.
Report generators MAY choose to adhere to the requested options.
This tag's content MUST be ignored if a "ruf" tag (below) is not
also specified. Failure reporting options are shown below. The value
of this tag is either "0", "1", or a colon-separated list of the
alphabetic characters shown in the list.
Above merged to main branch in github
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed _comment0 which not transferred by tractive
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Still wondering if we need some kind of disclaimer that we are aware that "d:s" is the same as "1", and that the colon-separated list only makes sense if there are at least three authentication options.
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Might be safe to just delete the bits about a colon-separated list.
A survey of nearly 74,000 DMARC records that Valimail has scanned found that just 316 (0.42%) were using the colon-separated list as a value to their 'fo' tag.
Other interesting numbers from the 73,917 domains...
5,906 with a value of '1'
517 with a value of '0'
74 with a value of 's'
11 with a value of 'd'
128 with a value of '1:d:s'
115 with a value of '0:1:d:s'
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from started
to infoneeded
@mail@wander.science commented
152,348 v=dmarc1 records in tranco toplist:
grep -i "v=dmarc1" 2021-05-09_tranco_dmarc.txt | grep -i -E "fo( *)=( )*[^;\"]+" -o | cut -d "=" -f 2-|sort |uniq -c | sort -r
40515 1
3985 0
825 0:1:d:s
634 s
575 1:d:s
281 0:d:s
108 0:1
106 d
59 1:s
52 0:s
50 d:s
35 0:1:s
22 1:d
21 1:s:d
11 0:d
7 0:1:s:d
5 0:1:d
3 s:1
1 1:1:d:s
(33 omitted with leading/trailing whitespace)
(50 omitted with syntax errors)
@mail@wander.science changed _comment0 which not transferred by tractive
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from infoneeded
to assigned
@todd.herr@valimail.com commented
Text is updated for rev -02, as per discussion during 27 May 2021 interim session (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-dmarc-01-202105270900/) and per consensus from working group mailing list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kSi0PL0fksyBGnZPIFzUL3cmJl4/)
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from assigned
to closed
@todd.herr@valimail.com set resolution to fixed-consensus
owner:todd.herr@valimail.com
resolution_fixed-consensus
type_defect
| by superuser@gmail.comMessage-ID: 54AB056C.2090101@bluepopcorn.net Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0800 From: Jim Fenton fenton@bluepopcorn.net To: "dmarc@ietf.org" dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on dmarc-base-09
[...] Section 5.3, definition of fo: parameter: I had reported that there isn't any prohibition on specifying both 0 and 1, and I thought someone said that was fixed but I can't find it. More generally, I struggle to find any real utility for a colon-separated list of options here. [...]
Issue migrated from trac:4 at 2022-01-24 16:13:40 +0000