I completely disagree. I have p=none and I find the reports very useful.
The policy is about action taken, not DMARC results, which is what feedback is about. Scott K On February 6, 2019 10:11:55 PM UTC, "Дилян Палаузов" <dilyan.palau...@aegee.org> wrote: >Hello John, > >DMARC reports for p=none are not supposed to be useful, as they do not >depend on the policy. > >If the question is about how to get reports on failing DKIM validation >only on unexpectedly smashed messages, then I >recall the last discussion on ietf-d...@ietf.org: > >- this is not DMARC, but DKIM domain >- when the DKIM-Signature does not validate, contains r=y and the >remainign provisions from RFC6651 do apply, a >(usefull) report shall be sent >- when a message is intentionally modified, in way that the >DKIM-Signature gets invalidated, the modified message shall >adapt somehow the fact that it was intentionally modified for >particular DKIM-Signatures, so that no useless report is >sent >- Nobody wants to modify DKIM-Signature, so it is unclear where to add >the information that the message was >intentionally smashed in regards the first and second DKIM-Signature, >but not for the third one. > >I proposed at the time to add a r=a tag, sending only report, when DKIM >aligns to From:, so that after passing a MLM >rewriting From: no reports shall be sent (contrary to r=y). Now I >realize, that for p=none there is no added >usefulness, since >- DKIM-Signature gets usually intentionally broken, while passing over >the MLM, and >- From: is not rewritten, therefore From: alignes to the signature, > >so a useless report will be sent for the message. > >Regards > Дилян > > >On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 20:01 -0500, John Levine wrote: >> In article <974c2d00017358cdf3b78037e4276234db2cfdee.ca...@aegee.org> >you write: >> > Hello John, >> > >> > On Sat, 2019-01-26 at 11:31 -0500, John Levine wrote: >> > > … The failure reports are almost >> > > entirely useless. Of the ones I get, the majority are random >Chinese >> > > spam that happened to forge one of my domains on the From line, >the >> > > rest are from mailing lists where I wouldn't expect DMARC to >pass. >> > How do you define a useful report and for which purpose do you want >to receive reports? >> >> A useful report would be one that was a message that one of my users >> had actually sent and was smashed in a way I didn't expect. >> >> > I mean, when does sending reports to p=none make sense. >> >> The feedback reporting doesn't depend on the policy. Please review >> section 7 of RFC 7489. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >dmarc@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
