On Tue 14/Mar/2023 23:50:13 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On March 14, 2023 10:41:12 PM UTC, Steven M Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/14/23 13:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
My expectation is that if you were able to contact the people who made that
decision, they'd say they did it because they want information on DMARC
failures, which is not what DMARC failure reports give you. They provide
details on messages which fail DMARC, not particularly about the DMARC failure.
The naming is a bit misleading, but I don't propose we change it.
Granted that you aren't proposing a change, I'm very curious as to what name
you feel would be more accurate...
I haven't really thought about it, but I've always thought that it was odd that
if I want to learn about why messages are failing DMARC, the message called a
DMARC failure report is not the one I want. I understand that there are
historical reasons for this.
Maybe DMARC domain results report for the aggregate report and DMARC additional
message data report for the failure report.
DMARC failure reports are the last of a series which includes DKIM failure
reports (RFC 6651) and SPF failure reports (RFC 6652). For DKIM, you add an r=
tag to the signature, and define ra= in a purposely defined record at
_report_domainkey.example.com. For SPF, you add an ra= tag to the SPF record
directly.
It is interesting to note that in case of DMARC failure, it would be useful to
have a DKIM or SPF failure report too, corresponding to what went wrong. How
many of those who request ruf= do also request it? And how many of those who
send DMARC failure reports send the others as well? My feeling is that
interest for DMARC failure reports came on the coattails of DMARC adoption,
while the other two are almost ignored.
While I acknowledge Steven's numbers on RUF w/o RUA, I wonder if we shouldn't
have discouraged adding ruf= tags at least as much as we're discouraging the
sending of that kind of reports.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
