Doug, And I don’t think what you’re doing is necessarily bad from an operational standpoint. I think the question centers around whether that aligning signature is sufficient, or should you report all the signatures the receiver attempted to verify? 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? 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?
-- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Douglas Foster Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 10:27 PM To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Which DKIM(s) should be reported? (Ticket #38) Currently, my filter only evaluates signatures that are relevant to From alignment, and stops after the first success. For that decision process, all that I need returned (and stored) is a Pass/Fail result; I don't need the details of the algorithm evaluated. Any additional information collection is for the benefit of someone else, not the needs of my own organization. The burden of data collection is proportionate to the amount of data collected. DMARC reporting is a courtesy service from the data collector to the domain owner. Each effort to increase the precision of the data may reduce the number of domains willing to provide that information. I suggest that we need report consumers in this group to discuss how they use the current data and the proposed additions to that data, so that a cost/benefit assessment can be made. At least some of that justification should be included in the final document, since one purpose of that document will be to convince non-reporting entities to begin sending reports. Doug Foster On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:25 PM Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman=40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hello folks, Some time ago, an issue[1] was brought to the list where which DKIM(s) being reported is not clear in RFC7489 [2]. There was a short discussion, though no clear resolution before conversation trailed off. It seems like there were points that may need to be discussed. One was whether the reporting SHOULD report all signatures, regardless of alignment or validity, or perhaps just the one that aligns (if there is one). There was also another question if there should be a limit to the number of signatures reported so that it remains sane. We'd like to try to get this resolved within about two weeks. Thank you for your feedback. 1: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9-V596yl2BBaUzCNaDZB1Tg1s4c/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9-V596yl2BBaUzCNaDZB1Tg1s4c/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Qpo-kfJv_5UxDUzgIBRorIdxz7CetdRpFZdJGsbp1-jajBKoHP4UU7Czr0lzsRRs61zozlYiYw$> 2: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489*section-7.2__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Qpo-kfJv_5UxDUzgIBRorIdxz7CetdRpFZdJGsbp1-jajBKoHP4UU7Czr0lzsRRs61yIx7-bJw$> -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org<mailto:dmarc@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Qpo-kfJv_5UxDUzgIBRorIdxz7CetdRpFZdJGsbp1-jajBKoHP4UU7Czr0lzsRRs61wMnt5UTQ$>
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
