Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[John Levine via dmarc-discuss]

>I noticed last week rddmarc fail to read aggregated reports from Comcast.
>They send an unusual Content-Type: application-x-gzip;

The most recent Comcast reports I have are from September, and they have
the same wrong content type.  It should be 

 Content-Type: application/gzip; ... whatever ...

(That's why I wrote RFC 6713.)

While our pals at Comcast are checking their header writing code, they
might also want to check why there aren't more recent reports.

R's,
John
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss]

Yes, the slash is mandatory. From RFC 2045 5.1:


 content := "Content-Type" ":" type "/" subtype
*(";" parameter)
; Matching of media type and subtype
; is ALWAYS case-insensitive.

- Roland


Roland Turner | Labs Director
Singapore | M: +65 96700022
roland.tur...@trustsphere.com




From: dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org> on behalf of Murray 
Kucherawy via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 07:05
To: A. Schulze; dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

That has to be a syntax error.

On 11/10/15, 12:02 AM, "dmarc-discuss on behalf of A. Schulze via
dmarc-discuss" <dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org on behalf of
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>I noticed last week rddmarc fail to read aggregated reports from Comcast.
>They send an unusual Content-Type: application-x-gzip;
>No idea if that's right or wrong. The attached patch extend rddmarc to
>import
>these reports.
>
>Andreas


___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[Murray Kucherawy via dmarc-discuss]

That has to be a syntax error.

On 11/10/15, 12:02 AM, "dmarc-discuss on behalf of A. Schulze via
dmarc-discuss"  wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>I noticed last week rddmarc fail to read aggregated reports from Comcast.
>They send an unusual Content-Type: application-x-gzip;
>No idea if that's right or wrong. The attached patch extend rddmarc to
>import
>these reports.
>
>Andreas


___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[Brotman, Alexander via dmarc-discuss]

I'm checking with the development group responsible to see if this was an error 
on our side, or what might have happened.  Are you able to share the target 
domain so they can try to track down what happened?

--
Alex Brotman
Engineer, Anti-Abuse
Comcast
x5364


-Original Message-
From: dmarc-discuss [mailto:dmarc-discuss-boun...@dmarc.org] On Behalf Of A. 
Schulze via dmarc-discuss
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:02 AM
To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
Subject: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports


Hello,

I noticed last week rddmarc fail to read aggregated reports from Comcast.
They send an unusual Content-Type: application-x-gzip; No idea if that's right 
or wrong. The attached patch extend rddmarc to import these reports.

Andreas

___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss]

Brotman, Alexander:

I'm checking with the development group responsible to see if this  
was an error on our side, or what might have happened.  Are you able  
to share the target domain so they can try to track down what  
happened?


Hi Alexander,

the target domain is datev.de. But the reports I noticed today were ~2  
weeks old.
Now, as we're in direct contact we'll get also fresh reports for  
?comcast.? <-> andreasschulze.de

tomorrow :-) Then I could provide current samples...

Andreas

___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

[dmarc-discuss] rddmarc & comcast reports

[A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss]

Hello,

I noticed last week rddmarc fail to read aggregated reports from Comcast.
They send an unusual Content-Type: application-x-gzip;
No idea if that's right or wrong. The attached patch extend rddmarc to import
these reports.

Andreas
Index: tmp/rddmarc
===
--- tmp.orig/rddmarc
+++ tmp/rddmarc
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ foreach my $i (@ARGV) {
 	my $npart = $ent->parts;
 	for my $n (0..($npart-1)) {
 		my $part = $ent->parts($n);
-		if(lc $part->mime_type eq "application/gzip") {
+		if(lc $part->mime_type eq "application/gzip"
+		   or lc $part->mime_type eq "application-x-gzip" ) {
 		$zip = $part->bodyhandle;
 		$isgzip = 1;
 		last;
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)