[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

It is helpful to understand how these reports can be useful. Given that those who use this feature are not present, I see no reason for people who don't use it to clarify or improve it for people who may not need clarification or improvement.. So #1 seems out of scope because we do not have stand

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

It appears that Dotzero said: >> 3. Abandon the document and deprecate failure reporting. That would >> involve mentioning failure reports, noting that they have been seldom used >> and problematic, and stating that their use going forward is not >> recommended. >The real question we should be

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Thu 20/Mar/2025 19:37:04 +0100 Laura Atkins wrote: I don’t think changes to the document are going to make the MBPs who have actively decided not to send RUF reports reconsider that decision. The failure-reporting draft doesn't try to encourage sending RUFs at scale. Rather the opposite.

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:49 AM Daniel K. wrote: > > The problem is that there's no longer a working group. We might blame me > > for that; it sure seemed to me like the WG that existed was out of energy > > and going in circles, and so I pressed it to get done by a deadline. > > > > Failure re

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

That’s an interesting perspective. While senders could embed identifiers to mitigate PII concerns, the bigger challenge seems to be that most MBPs have already moved away from sending failure reports altogether. Even with a workaround, I wonder if the inconsistency in report availability still limi

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Based on my experience, RUF (forensic failure reports) have not been as valuable as initially intended. While some entities still provide failure reports, their usefulness in troubleshooting is limited unless one is willing to analyze them at a deep level, which is often impractical. Since most pr

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 3/31/25 18:22, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:06 AM Daniel K. wrote: > I think a common notion is that when a document moves up in status (this > one is going from Independent Stream Informational to IETF Stream Proposed > Standard), we are expected to drop things that

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:16 AM Matt Ratliff wrote: > Based on my experience, RUF (forensic failure reports) have not been as > valuable as initially intended. While some entities still provide failure > reports, their usefulness in troubleshooting is limited unless one is > willing to analyze th

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

I don’t think changes to the document are going to make the MBPs who have actively decided not to send RUF reports reconsider that decision. If there were some MBPs who could say they would reconsider then my vote might change. But until there is some change in the number of folks sending report

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

I concur with option 3, for the reasons noted by Todd. They represent a privacy issue and have not been implemented at scale thus far. On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, at 12:12 AM, Todd Herr wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:52 AM Mark Alley > wrote: >> __ >> On 3/19/2025 7:03 AM, Dotzero wrote: >>

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

It appears that Daniel K. said: >It is mentioned several times in that thread that failure reporting is >going on by private arrangement. For this reason too, I think a proper >format for the reports should be specified. People better plugged into the DMARC ecosystem than I am tell me that in fa

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:03 PM Dotzero wrote: > As one of the people who originally came up with DMARC, I strongly > disagree with approach 3. We could have kept DMARC a "private club" that > created value only for those invited to participate. Instead the > participants in the effort felt that

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:06 AM Daniel K. wrote: > Lately, I thought of it as a detail of the process that failure > reporting was not reviewed at the same time as the other documents. I > judged it to be likely, based on the several emails emphasizing how many > pages was available for a telech

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 4/1/25 16:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:13 AM Daniel K. > wrote: > > It is mentioned several times in that thread that failure reporting is > going on by private arrangement. For this reason too, I think a proper > format for the

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

[Sorry, that sent before it was ready.] On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:48 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > The WG obviously took a good deal of time. But that's not a good reason > to > shut it down abruptly. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9FI6knDM1unxVy_9H711yZISNVc/ I don't think you

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Hi Murray and DMARC, This is to acknowledge your message and the end of this call for consensus. Thanks to Barry for formulating the three options and giving structure to the discussion. When I have completed my evaluation, I will send a message to this list. -andy, ART AD On 3/31/25 10:36,

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Tue 01/Apr/2025 18:42:09 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:28 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to complete any work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has not gotten through the I

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:28 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to > complete any > > work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has > not > > gotten through the IESG will die with the working group, which > inc

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:13 AM Daniel K. wrote: > It is mentioned several times in that thread that failure reporting is > going on by private arrangement. For this reason too, I think a proper > format for the reports should be specified. > I suggest that this is at least in part a contradictio

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Tue 01/Apr/2025 16:50:44 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:48 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: [...] And what I said was: It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to complete any work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has n

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 3/31/25 19:49, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:49 AM Daniel K. wrote: > Since I joined, I do not remember any, "we'll likely abandon failure > reporting" statements being made. > > My recollection is that we started tossing around the idea of dropping > it aroun

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:48 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > The WG obviously took a good deal of time. But that's not a good reason > to > shut it down abruptly. > I don't think it was abrupt. > > > >> You did not answer my concerns wrt. the necessary document changes if > >> chosing 2 or 3, an

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Mon 31/Mar/2025 21:49:27 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:49 AM Daniel K. wrote: The problem is that there's no longer a working group. We might blame me for that; it sure seemed to me like the WG that existed was out of energy and going in circles, and so I pres

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 3/19/25 11:08, Barry Leiba wrote: > I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without completing > the failure reporting document. We have discussed what to do about failure > reporting,but never made a decision. We need to decide now. > > I see three options: > > 1. Continue

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

This thread seems to have died down. Andy, I think we're looking to you for a consensus call here. -MSK On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 3:07 PM Marc Bradshaw wrote: > I concur with option 3, for the reasons noted by Todd. They represent a > privacy issue and have not been implemented at scale thus far

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 3/19/2025 7:03 AM, Dotzero wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:09 AM Barry Leiba wrote: I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without completing the failure reporting document.  We have discussed what to do about failure reporting,but never made a decision.  We

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Hi there, On Thu, 20 Mar 2025, Seth Blank wrote: ... Don't take my word for it-- put a reporting address in your RUF and see for yourself. Data is rare, and when it comes, is mostly Not mostly. All. legitimate email that lost authentication due forwarding that breaks DKIM like a mailing li

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

As noted by Al et al - the forensic reports have a PII problem so sharing them at scale would always be problematic from Google's perspective. So option #3 is my favorite. Technically I'm not against a proposal that includes forensic reports as an option to aggregated reports. I'm just saying those

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

> On Mar 19, 2025, at 7:08 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > 1. Continue discussing the document, complete it, and ask Andy to AD-sponsor > it. > > 2. Abandon the document, leave failure reporting as it had been, and refer > people to the old (Informational) DMARC spec for documentation of it. > > 3

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:16 AM Matt Ratliff wrote: > Based on my experience, RUF (forensic failure reports) have not been as > valuable as initially intended. While some entities still provide failure > reports, their usefulness in troubleshooting is limited unless one is > willing to analyze th

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On 3/19/25 4:08 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without completing the failure reporting document.  We have discussed what to do about failure reporting,but never made a decision.  We need to decide now. [ Three options... ] I recommend/prefe

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Responses in-line. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:03 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:03 PM Dotzero wrote: > >> As one of the people who originally came up with DMARC, I strongly >> disagree with approach 3. We could have kept DMARC a "private club" that >> created value on

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:09 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > I recommend that we do (3), and call for objections to that path. If you > agree with (3), please note that here. If you prefer (1) or (2), please > state that and say why. If you see another reasonable option and prefer > it, please describ

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:09 AM Barry Leiba wrote: > > I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without completing > the failure reporting document. We have discussed what to do about failure > reporting,but never made a decision. We need to decide now. > > I see three options:

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

And to add to this, no major mailbox provider sends failure reports, and they have all indicated at M3AAWG and on this list that they will never implement failure reporting. I’d go further and say that when DMARC was first ideated, there was a belief that failure reports were necessary to understa

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:09 AM Barry Leiba wrote: > I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without > completing the failure reporting document. We have discussed what to do > about failure reporting,but never made a decision. We need to decide now. > > I see three options: >

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Is it in the spirit of the Trump administration that we have to shut down so hastily? Methinks we might as well finish, that is (1); but note the draft is not a WG draft any more. Best Ale On Wed 19/Mar/2025 12:08:49 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote: I note that we are shutting down the DMARC workin

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

> On 19 Mar 2025, at 13:12, Todd Herr > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:52 AM Mark Alley > > wrote: >> On 3/19/2025 7:03 AM, Dotzero wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:09 AM Barry Leiba >> > wrote: I n

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:52 AM Mark Alley wrote: > On 3/19/2025 7:03 AM, Dotzero wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:09 AM Barry Leiba > wrote: > >> I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without >> completing the failure reporting document. We have discussed what to do >> a

[dmarc-ietf] Re: Closing down the failure reporting document

Hi there, On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Barry Leiba wrote: I note that we are shutting down the DMARC working group without completing the failure reporting document. We have discussed what to do about failure reporting,but never made a decision. We need to decide now. I see three options: 1. Contin