Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

[Dave Crocker via dmarc-discuss]

On 10/12/2016 3:31 AM, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote:

Let me clarify a bit -- the dmarc-discuss list is very much an
appropriate forum for the kind of operational topic Juri raised.
Implementation issues, operational questions/issues, etc -- all good for
this list.


Yup.



But for things that appear to be more than that, the IETF WG is a better
place to take them.


If it's likely a specification or even a BCP will be needed, the IETF 
list is where that needs to happen.


That said, it's not uncommon for an issue to first surface in a general 
list, such as dmarc-discuss, and only eventually get to the point where 
people decide it is going to need specification work.  At that point, of 
course, it migrates.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
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] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

[Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss]

On 12.10.2016 12:17, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> On 10/12/16 01:32, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:

>> Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To: headers?
> 
> Looking at the last few reports I received from them for this domain, I
> only see one 5322.To header. But the most recent report was
> mid-September. Anybody else out there seeing two? It could make tracking
> down a bug much easier for them.

My last report is half a year old, but has two headers, too:

> From: abuse_dm...@abuse.aol.com
> To: r...@dmarc.sapienti-sat.org
> To: pboza...@ag.dmarcian.com

So it seems, AOL is putting every rua URI into a seperate To: header...

  Juri

___
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] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

[Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss]

On 10/12/16 03:17, Steven M Jones via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> On 10/12/16 02:00, Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>>
>> Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>> 
>>
>
> +1.

Let me clarify a bit -- the dmarc-discuss list is very much an
appropriate forum for the kind of operational topic Juri raised.
Implementation issues, operational questions/issues, etc -- all good for
this list.

But for things that appear to be more than that, the IETF WG is a better
place to take them. And I think that if you consider current handling of
size limits, planning for growing report sizes in the near future, and
an additional report transport - all those together - it seems an
appropriate bundle to take to the WG.

--S.

___
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] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

[Roland Turner via dmarc-discuss]

Consider https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc


- Roland




From: dmarc-discuss  on behalf of Juri 
Haberland via dmarc-discuss 
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 16:32
To: Juri Haberland
Cc: DMARC Discussion List
Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

Hi,

I hoped to get a reaction here of some sort from Microsoft, Google or
Yahoo,
but my mail might got burried underneath useless rants about DMARC and
DNSSEC...

Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To:
headers?


Kind regards,
   Juri


On 2016-10-04 09:21, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while writing a patch for OpenDMARC, I stumbled accross problems with
> the
> size limit in DMARC URIs that some of the big players have.
>
> Microsoft cannot cope at all with an URI like "rep...@example.org!10m"
> -
> you won't receive a single report.
>
> Yahoo and Google do send a report and respect the size limit - as long
> as
> this URI is the only one in the rua tag.
> As soon as one adds another URI (with or without size limit) to the rua
> tag, Google and Yahoo forget to strip the size limit from the URI and
> thus
> try to send a mail to "rep...@example.org!10m"!
>
> As OpenDMARC also had problems with the size limit in older versions,
> it is
> best to avoid the use of size limits for now.
___
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] Beware of the size limit in DMARC URIs

[Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss]

Hi,

I hoped to get a reaction here of some sort from Microsoft, Google or 
Yahoo,
but my mail might got burried underneath useless rants about DMARC and 
DNSSEC...


Btw: Did anyone notice that AOL sends DMARC reports with two To: 
headers?



Kind regards,
  Juri


On 2016-10-04 09:21, Juri Haberland via dmarc-discuss wrote:

Hi,

while writing a patch for OpenDMARC, I stumbled accross problems with 
the

size limit in DMARC URIs that some of the big players have.

Microsoft cannot cope at all with an URI like "rep...@example.org!10m" 
-

you won't receive a single report.

Yahoo and Google do send a report and respect the size limit - as long 
as

this URI is the only one in the rua tag.
As soon as one adds another URI (with or without size limit) to the rua
tag, Google and Yahoo forget to strip the size limit from the URI and 
thus

try to send a mail to "rep...@example.org!10m"!

As OpenDMARC also had problems with the size limit in older versions, 
it is

best to avoid the use of size limits for now.

___
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)