On May 13, 2024 2:37:01 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon 13/May/2024 12:53:14 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 13, 2024 7:59:20 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> someone objected to PSDs being unable to receive failure reports even if 
>>> the PSD is the From: domain.  For example:
>>> 
>>> _dmarc.psd.example IN TXT "p=none psd=y [email protected]
>>> 
>>> In case a mail having "From: [email protected]" fails DMARC, couldn't the 
>>> receiver generate a failure report?
>>> 
>>> draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10 currently says:
>>> 
>>>    Report generators MUST NOT consider ruf= tags in records having
>>>    a "psd=y" tag, unless there are specific agreements between the
>>>    interested parties.
>>> 
>>> instead, it could say:
>>> 
>>>    Report generators MUST NOT consider ruf= tags in records having
>>>    a "psd=y" tag, unless the domain is the RFC5322.From domain and/
>>>    or there are specific agreements between the interested parties.
>>> 
>>> However, draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis#section-10.2 says:
>>> 
>>>    DMARC records for multi-organizational PSDs MUST NOT include
>>>    the ruf= tag.
>>> 
>>> Opinions?
>> 
>> I think that 10.2 should stay as is.
>> 
>> I don't know how common it will be that PSDs send mail.
>
>
>It's the second time I hear this topic being discussed.  Not very common, but 
>may happen.
>
>
>>  I think your proposed change is fine as far as the reasons the current 
>> restrictions are there.  It does, however, make things a little more 
>> complicated.  Is this important enough to add implementation complexity for 
>> all implementers?
>
>
>The current text as well as the proposed change require the PSO to pass the 
>reporting address to the receiver.  If there is a specific agreement, we may 
>suppose the address is contained therein.  The other case requires to put it 
>in the ruf= tag.
>
>Could Section 10.2 say SHOULD NOT instead?

I think no.  My recollection is that MUST NOT was agreed to mitigate privacy 
concerns associated with failure reporting and PSDs.  I don't think we should 
mess with it.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to