Internet Engineering Task Force Interim Meetings, 11 Jun 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: DMARC WG Interim Meeting, 2020-06-11

Description

DMARC WG Interim Meeting, 2020-06-11

A

So now it's basically a good time to try to do a summary of what was discussed in a joint in their mark session. I.

A

Think it was an interesting mix of people going over the issues that we already started on. The mark mining list like what it means to implement Demark for different parties, what the requirements are and some special cases like. What's the meaning of yeah equal, none with no, you have option with no reporting. So what is it? What exactly does it mean? Is it syntactically valid or in, but it's still not encouraged the war, a lot of province about use of PCT option which I think something we might want to discuss here.

A

Seth, what are the other major so.

B

There were a few: there are a few people from mod who chimed in that yeah people's known without reporting.

B

Ecosystem issues and we've already had that discussion on list, and there was already consensus on that, but there's definitely clearly a need for a PCP there. There was there was a conversation around the percent tag, that's people who do find it valuable versus those who don't and there was specifically 4%, there's also wider conversation around up percent equals zero with people's quarantine. I think it's actually a really meaningful conversation to have here at the IETF and I.

B

Think all of them I believe you're on the phone and I might ask you to provide more depth to that use case in particular, and then there was oh, there were additional questions of some.

B

We actually get this at MOG from government organizations where there's an ask for a way to ask Demark for both SPF and DKIM, and so that there's a meaningful conversation there, because it comes up again and I think that again to have that conversation, the IETF and have to show consensus around that is meaningful, even though I think the answer is well-known. I, don't think that conversations happened at the IGF I think those are the the very top line points and there will be more that will summarize over time.

B

And I think there's a comment in the chat here from the American Red Cross I think it's Dave Crocker the wrong display name.

B

It said ask for adjusted for the chairs to describe the scope of work of the market best project and how arc slots in so actually Alexi. Do you want to provide that overview.

A

Yes, so roughly.

A

The original Demark spec was not published on the ITF consensus rules, so it hasn't really gotten enough buy-in from ITF community. So this round. Hopefully we are doing it as a proper working group item and want to make sure the spec is clear that if there are any unused features that they are likely to be removed, or at least if there are features that people want to move, then their.

A

Residence should be justified in this back also, we have a list of open issues on to thought idea of the tour guide. Doing for this, which we started. Collecting from 2015 and Seth were added quite a bit more this year, so the idea is to go over known issues and try to reach rough consensus for change and also change a lot of discussion going to be about what it means to implement a specific feature. What.

A

So yeah, basically the idea is that will gia will ask for about three issues at any given time so that not to overload the mailing list and try to get closure and revise the document accordingly. The other thing is the mark. Working group charter requires us to address in direct mail close, which we published arc document as experimental RFC.

A

So we are looking to get more experience with this and.

A

Hopefully, if we get feedback that it's useful and get it quickly enough, then it will be folded into G mark document itself to address this use case, because this is one of the major objections about instabilities that Demark introduced into my lack of a system.

B

And then my only other questions as a follow-up Marie as the area director. What are you, what is your criteria to put forward a standards, track, Demark documents or anything else, you're? Looking for I.

C

Mean I, don't have a checklist in mind, I think that it just needs to be able generally to pass standards track muster. So it's got to be a positive improvement.

C

It needs to take into account the the pain that Demark as an informational document cause when it was rolled out sort of abruptly several years ago, I mean I. Think the things that it probably needs to handle are fairly obvious to people in the community.

C

It's like I, don't have specific tests. Excuse me, I, don't have a specific checklist in mind. I, just I think that that people are gonna be looking at this very carefully for all the obvious reasons, and we just need to be make sure that when we send it to the iesg or even IETF, last call that we have done our due diligence about what those topics are going to be and that we have a good answer for everything.

D

I I was going to mention what Murray said the it has to deal with the issues of mailing list, breakage that everybody is seeing everybody's well aware of that and you're gonna get a lot of pushback from IETF last call I, think and from the iesg. If, if the standard version of the document doesn't deal with it in some reasonable way,.

B

There's actually I think has to go to the list off the interim, but is is AHRQ's I'm actually need to fold into D mark as like a third option. Yeah.

D

I mean I, wouldn't I, wouldn't fold the document in, but there you may need a normative reference and and some discussion about how it can fit. It would also help if, if arc is moved to propose standard at the same time,.

C

Yeah I, don't think that's my I mean you might convince me otherwise, but I, don't think it makes sense to merge, make arc a formal part of Demark I, think making it another layer or a piece of indication layer below it. That strikes me as more palatable because it should be a sort of a plug-and-play type of mechanism, but we'll see as it develops. That's.

D

Why I said a normative reference? I certainly would not merge it in yeah.

C

I'm agreeing with you.

B

So then, let's, let's move on I, should speak about some of the operational issues that are coming over from nog. That haven't been well discussed at the ITF before I think we have three people who've raised their hand to speak about the use case of P equals quarantine percent equals zero.

B

I, think that there's Jesse Thompson autumn care, salvia and M Ben Davis, and so the the ask here is: if you want to actually speak, if you can just put us Q in the chat and then we'll manage the Q just so just it remains orderly, we're not people muting and unmuting themselves and causing chaos. So if you're ready to speak just throw plus Q in the chat- and we will call your name out.

B

E

Hello good afternoon this is material from from mine cost and so about the PS quarantine, PC t0 use case. The situation is that some email receivers adjust the the message went forward with forwarding it based on the Dima policy.

E

So let's say: if the policy is P is superior. None, they don't do anything with the headers. However, if their policy is P is quarantined, they they could yeah change the headers to make sure the message is still Dima compliant.

E

However, if you are a receiver or if you are a seller of a message, you want to make sure that you don't have any side effects when you go to a County policy, and this is why the the PCT zero use case is there, so it soon, if you go to the other copies quarantine and peace T zero, at least you know that there are no meals locked yet because you have the PCT zero, but you do know that the authentication of the messages also don't doesn't change this.

E

If you go to another percentage tag, clear.

B

Yeah I think what you're saying is. Basically, there are certain receivers when you move from a policy of none to a policy of quarantine, regardless of percentage, it impacts, mail flow and so percent equals zero lets. You get reporting on the new mail flow without actually having any operational change on the sender end. Is that correctly? Yes,.

E

So, for instance, for google, they are one of the center's which do this or they as soon as they they see message and it's forwarded. They change the center of the message. So basically, that message would actually disappear from the democra porting of the initial sender.

E

Change the point or the date you get in in your d'emic reports and that can change the opinion you may have on certain low flows yeah while implementing the mark, but.

B

If they change the from, then you don't actually get the report back from that change, so doesn't that actually doesn't People's Party percent equals zero hide the problem.

E

So in this case yeah it's let's say it's a the forwarding is.

E

Like let's say so, it's it's not, it doesn't make the message itself invalid, but the the initial message was tell it and they forward it and normally you that would break the remark set up for that message. But by changing the sender they preserved the validity of the message.

B

Okay, thank you. We've got a few people lining up in queue so autumn.

F

So, to add on to that, this is a very common situation where there are participants in various mailing lists on a given domain. They send their emails out to the mailing list using their original from address, and then, of course, the list will change things.

F

It'll fail, SPF, because the list server is not a part of the domains, SPF entry and it will also fail DCAM, because mailing lists make meaningful changes to D Kim I they'll change things like the message body by adding an unsubscribe link, which of course then changes the body hash and breaks deacon so by the header munging. That removes the concern that the message would then fail d mark for the domain that is owned by the organization, considering a more restrictive policy.

F

But the challenge is that there are some mailing list: providers that automatically Munch headers for quarantine or reject policies and others that require a manual intervention. So one example of this is Group. Co is a mailing list service provider they'll automatically change the headers when they see a quarantine or reject policy. I simile, listserve Bael soft of the sufficiently advanced version will also do this automatically.

F

On the other hand, the popular mailing list- software mailman- has an option to do this, but it's something that an individual list admin must positively make a change for, and so, when an organization is virtually done, authenticating most of their traffic and they see some list server traffic. They have no idea if that will still be an issue for them after a quarantine or reject policy, or if the system in question will automatically rewrite those headers and particularly for large organizations. They often have people participating in many mailing lists where it's not always obvious upfront.

F

If that system will rewrite headers automatically or not, and so using the percentage equals zero quarantine policy is one way that we will be able to see what headers will be rewritten, because as soon as they make a change, the systems that rewrite the helpers disappear from the reporting data and the systems that don't automatically make the change still show as fails, and so that can allow an organization to then go. Pursue I had our munging through intentional list. Admin changes for what traffic remains.

F

B

You all I have a question for you. There then do you consider this in sort of an issue in the ecosystem, with how mailing lists and LD mark user there's a bug with D mark? Do you consider the ability to do people 14% equal zero, like a bug that you're taking advantage of a feature that you're taking advantage of like how do you? How would you summarize this like if everything worked properly, is this needed, or is this just because of friction in the the ecosystem without demarcus handles I? Would.

F

Say definitely the latter. It is because of friction in inconsistent mailing list practices where some systems automatically make that change. Other systems do not, and ideally I, would love to see every system automatically make that change so that systems that are domains that are about to do a restricted policy will not have mailing lists as a an issue. This comes up a whole lot and I know by esteemed colleagues. Wilson speak to this, but I see this a lot for higher ed I.

F

Also see it a lot for government, because government researchers, higher ed researchers, participate in mailing lists at a very high degree, and because of that, this has been a barrier to Demark adoption, so I would say using percent equals. Zero is a little bit of a hack, but at the same time, mailing lists were not adequately provided for I. Think in this back originally, and so this is one way that we can get that vital information in an otherwise uncertain world.

B

And at the risk of saying and same thing, if percent will remove, but some other way of communicating hey treat this, like you, would a male, a male stream under a policy. Would that also meet the same need? Yes,.

F

And in fact it might do so better. There are a couple of small receivers that have a bug in their Demark system such that they can never quarantine or reject any less than 2%, and so, whenever I recommend a domain makes this change. We recognize that there will always be some number of messages that are actually quarantined, even when we have a percent equals. Similarly, there are a couple of systems that ignore the percentage lag entirely, so I only recommend domains do this when all other avenues have been exhausted.

F

If there was another means of communicating header imaging, that would be fantastic.

B

um Thank you autumn. That was very informative, at least for me. I hope for others, too Jesse yeah.

G

I think autumn covered it really well and I, don't have too much to add other than the bug in that some receivers, misinterpreting percent or treating it as 100. It kind of gets us closer to a destination based alternative to 2 percent itself by accident, so that might need to be addressed. The other thing that maybe is worth calling out is.

G

It would be great if we could get to all mailing list to munge by default and, at the same token, it'd be great if there is a way for receiving systems to reconstruct what the original sender was in some standard way.

G

Maybe art could solve that, but I the the problem I see with arc is that the arc the mailing list doesn't know if the recipient system will support arc and trust them from a reputation sampling. So they have to munge and I worry that we'll have to have mailing lists munging essentially forever until we have a complete art.

B

Cannot some people share that concern Thank, You, Jesse and I'm gonna? Ask you to talk again in a minute about stripped down failure reports, but before that Scott you raise your hand.

H

So this is Scott. Did you just call on me? Yes, yes, so I mean one of the challenges here is all this from wondering is not standardized, and so a standard organization seems to me to be kind of an odd place to complain about people doing unstandardized things wrong and I get why people do it and why they wanted, but from email works perspective, it's really a gross hack and I.

H

Don't think it's ever going to be anything other than something people do to get around problems, and so I I don't get a lot of value in trying to figure out how to do it right, cuz, I, don't think there is a right and I think it pretty unlikely. The IETF would accept it formally.

B

Aleksey Kim Marie berry. Anyone have a comment on that.

B

Hearing no one just.

A

A comment in general that I sort of hear what you're saying Scott but I think if we can get rough consensus in Demark working group that something needs to be done on this, and we can get rough consensus on specific text, then things can change. What do they would? You know obviously I have no way of knowing at this point, so it certainly try yeah I think you know. Maybe we should try to.

A

We should definitely have an open issue for this. Maybe we should try and see if we can resolve it or whether it will dissolve in no change required, we'll see.

B

So then Scott my ask for you is if you can create the issue in traffic. Please say again: if you can create the issue in track, please.

H

Not sure what I would write, because we would and for Mike refract, continue to say nothing about the thing we say nothing about so there's no action. Yeah.

I

What are you asking him to log is an issue in track. I don't understand it. Are there.

B

Just the conversation about Pender, but if there something to do here or not, we think we know we. The chairs can take that off to the side figure all I want to do. Okay,.

I

You seem to know I think that's better I think that's better to do out of the yeah from the notes. Here we can figure out if there's an action.

B

And then Y on PR Europe. Next, yes,.

J

Thanks just as a quick add on to what Jesse said, basically, I was wondering if we could put something in this back. That's the sender should take care not to send out messages that violate Demark in any way, but that should probably obviously be should, in the case of P or P, is not a P equals none, but it might be even stronger that if P equals quarantine or reject that you, you must not send out messages that break it or something, and that would then apply to mailing lists.

J

But it's just a suggestion of framing stuff. So.

I

How would we get spammers and and abusers to observe such a restriction right.

J

This is obviously not meant for spammers because they would not really know play by the by the rules, but for it would be something you could show too, like mailing these operators or people who are trying to do the right thing, but so it it's more of a general framework where you can say where you can put all kinds of behavior, for example, there's sometimes web forms or you can put in your email address and they tend to mail in the background with with the from address set to whatever you put in that field.

J

That is simply bad practice, but you could point people at this sames back which so, if you, if you phrase it in the terms of mailing list, then it's maybe a bit too specific. And if just if you just say well as I said, it's just a suggestion. They thought officer, yeah.

B

I think it's worthwhile to bring to the list. I think you know if you squint, and look forward and everything demarks widely deployed, then people who do those things that it'll never hit an inbox because they can't authenticate is the domain they're trying to send from so the problem does actually solve itself with wide adoption of Demark.

H

Or the opposite: if, if the rulers are not supposed to send out an email that would not fail Demark, then that would mean I never send mail to an email list, which means I'm deleting my d mark record.

H

J

Right yeah but Scott you were not the one sending the mail that that goes wrong. That's the amazing this when it when it sends it on so that I'm not saying nobody that, for.

I

Forcing mailing list to manipulate headers is an extremely touchy subject and if that's what you're proposing then I, don't think, that's gonna go very far. I think.

B

There's a rabbit hole here that we're not gonna get out of on the interim. So if yo, if you think this thing you want to talk about, let's take it to the list. Let's see where it goes, but I think you're hearing which direction it will go.

B

So the next thing I want to talk about. I think that was the cue is that there was also a conversation about at MOG about forensic reports and if there are ways so instead of getting the entire contents of the message, you get more redacted messages or stripped down failure reports, the sense of you get just the auth results and to and from or domains and URLs I want to know. If there's anyone who came over from MOG wants to talk about their point of view of what they might want here.

B

And autumn you're up withdraw all.

F

Right well, ultimately, I'm anything forensic reports, even if it's down so I, would prefer ideally full forensic reports, because that information is very helpful. But I know there are a lot of systems that are concerned about privacy, law violations or other issues might choose to not do forensic reports if they have to include that are expected so stripped down. Data is better than no data a lot of times, I work with large organizations that have otherwise no idea what is being sent on their domain.

F

So, if you think of a large international business or a university, there are many distinct users that are not at all connected to the internal team that might be working on a demur project and trying to figure that out is quite challenging. Even will often find multiple instances using the same service provider. So I can think of one government domain that had almost 30 separate MailChimp accounts and the best way that we could find to get that information.

F

In some instances, I have the ability to work with the email service provider, but in other instances, were kind of stuck. So whenever we have forensic reporting, getting a from address is extraordinarily helpful. Even a you know, a subject line is additionally helpful. Links in the message are helpful, but even just a from address and label itself is a massive improvement above and beyond what we get from aggregate reporting. So if allowing a stripped down version of forensic reporting will in turn, allow more organizations to send forensic reporting I'm in favor of it, I'm.

I

Puzzled because yeah the sender's have always had the option to strip there's.

B

F

Yes, I suppose many of them had that option encouraged and.

B

G

Just because you called on me I think autumn did a good well explaining it yet again, yeah even within our own institution. We don't know who is using our domain. We. We know that there's sometimes using internal systems, but we don't care what those aren't central systems they're distributed.

G

There yeah there they're using random esps and the ESP generally just checks to see if they can receive mail at an address to verify if they can use the domain of some sort, and then we have a hard time even getting information from the ESP as to which which of their customers are using our domain, because that's private private information to them, but generally they've been helpful if we reach out, but it's just kind of cumbersome to go through that.

G

I know that some of the you mark benders will you use the SPF macro approach to try to get sense of which envelope from addresses are being used. That seems a little bit of a kludge and a privacy issue to me, but it is a little clever. So that's pretty much my perspective. It would be great if we could see the address or subject like like arm says so that we can track down who they are and let them know to use a subdomain or something like that.

B

Thank You Jesse Dave.

B

If, if you're talking, you're, muted.

B

Crocker is speechless: Kurt you're up so.

I

Autumn, are you asking the in the spec we be more blatant about forensic reports can be whatever the heck you feel like. You are comfortable, sending and then provide some sort of a ranked list of these are the things that are most useful, to least useful if you're going to try to strip down your forensics. Yes, okay,.

F

Since I'm on one sec, there is one other point that I had mentioned and that's on the abuse fighting side of this. Sometimes these samples get forwarded to takedown vendors or law enforcement, and so that's another use case for this as well. It's not just companies wanting to do Demark, who don't know what they're sending it's. It's also the abuse fighting side.

B

Thank you all I'm Dave, let's see if you fixed it, does.

K

I

K

Sorry about that and sorry for not getting in the queue when I meant to be I didn't figure out the mechanism. This is back to the header munging, not to give an answer, but to point out that I think there needs to be some clarity about what problem there. Is it's easy to go to the symptom of header, munging and focus on that, but but stepping back and trying to make sure we understand what what is the nature of the issue being dealt with where header munging is a symptom that causes problems.

K

I tried to get a little discussion of that going, which led to the suggestion for an author field I'm, not lobbying for that per se, but rather for being clear about. What's the need and then figure out how to solve it,.

I

Thank you, Dave I,.

B

Think they need to be very specific. There is absolutely correct: there's a cue from honey, artisan.

L

In question, so one of the topics identified in the Moloch session was that there are multiple morgue stakeholders who have problems with the mark and forwarding emails to external addresses and I think that's kind of the bigger picture. So we have ISPs forward email from domains they host to some other place. We have alumni web sites and personal address web sites and we have mailbox providers who are also providing forwarding to their users. So I think it's a big question.

L

You know how do you solve this indirect email flow use case in some meaningful way and avoid that kind of workarounds and hacks.

B

H

B

Think the next thing is another.

I

Cue request from tono: yes,.

B

Sorry I pulled up notes and missed it. No no go ahead. Yeah.

M

I was also I wanted to say about the issue of emails being forwarded and and content being adjusted a little bit. Ultimately, if my understanding is correct, Demark is about to send us authenticity more than the integrity of the content. If you look at what dkim at what elements are mandatory and what are optional, if you scale down on the elements to be included in hashed alkylation and you allow for the body to be modified, the things will always pass through, but you ensure that the sender's authenticity z' is guaranteed.

B

Thank you is Steve Jones. You left a note in the chat, but you want to talk to it.

N

Sure, if necessary, one of the trip support for the idea of the reduced forensic reports or failure, reports I forget, which term was last in a common practice, the if the idea had already been floated, basically that while we saw several different degrees of redaction and practice when there were still multiple senders, a number of centers of those reports, perhaps it would be useful for those who reject it when they don't understand the scope of what's potentially involved. If they could see some examples of those redacted reports.

N

I don't know if this rises to the level of something normative in Demark this or something like an arc speck, but in some sense this might potentially address the availability of that information by increasing the potential pool, helping them get past their objections.

B

Thank you, Steve Alex Brotman. If you're available you, you made a comment about SPF. Do you want to make it publicly here yeah.

O

Can you hear me okay,.

B

O

It was just more of a comment and and I know it's hot ass with some examples, but I said it might comment a little bit. More action fact would be nice if Demark bisque could make some requirements. The right word there's some restrictions of some sort about SPF that involves week all statements. So if they use like a plus all evoke an and D mark, as we go through G markers, can we make it so that they plus all validates it or something like that or won't work on P equals reject or something like that.

O

I, don't know something like that. It's the case but um and then I excited to also potentially say like. Well, maybe we end up with something like a matrix where question mark all only works with um quarantine and none and something like that, and then you know, plus all doesn't anything or something like that. But it's just uh it's just a thought just because we have seen the past folks who are something like equals: quarantine, but there's plus all which is kind of not really ideal.

B

Alex won't clarifying question for jump to the queue it sounds like it, but are you seeing operational issues like this actually causing like spam and abuse problems.

O

Has a misuse we've had to have some senders correct it. It doesn't necessarily really cause operational issues, although I bet on the other side, if they're getting deep mark reports, they're, probably getting a lot more than they anticipated much larger reports. But I can't really comment on that. It's like we're not seeing ourselves, but it's just you know something like that is potentially a way that we can help strengthen as yeah. If folks want the advantages of DeMarco protector.

B

So I I think Germans are discussing this I think is actually in the d mark working groups charter but I think it's out of the scope of D mark this, but I want to know what the consensus of the group is. What might what the other chairs think, but to that Curt and yeah go.

I

Ahead, I'm going to agree the discussing it is probably fair as long as we don't rat hole on it, I don't see how making it more complicated to determine the truth table of what constitutes a pass is going to help anybody in a prepper implementation, though I don't see that this is official.

I

There's lots of ways to sneak around this, and, if we're going to say that there's some fuzzy line where oh that's too loose, it's going to be a never-ending problem, so I, don't think that it is viable and I would not be in favor of it.

B

And battle bad off as separate, then what does it mean to do the off properly.

I

Well, what is it yeah? How do you evaluate it properly, yeah, okay,.

B

C

Two points, one with my ad hat on I- do not believe that you are forbidden charter from talking about this or proposing an extension in the dis in the best document to actually take this into account. As an implementer, though I'll point out that your interface between SPF and DKIM and Arc and D mark is the authentication results field which does not give you a way to say the SPF policy in effect, for this was plus all so, you don't actually have that information.

C

You would have to create that channel, at least at least that's the most common interface between the two. So if you're going to create this as a this is a criterion, you have to think about how you're gonna get that information.

B

Thank You Murray Jim Fenton had a slightly different topic so before we switch topics, I also believe on the list. This came up briefly and Scott. Tenorman had a point of view. I want to give Scott a chance to jump it if he wanted otherwise we'll go to Jim and change. The topic.

H

Think we can do it on the list later. Another thing to talk about Jim.

B

The floor is yours, Thanks.

P

I hope you can hear me um one of the things that came up on the list recently that I think was kind of buried in another discussion was the question of whether the weather users actually can see or if they can see, do they act on the domain. I, the the domain and the and the email address of the from field and I'm, not sure that was resolved and I. You know there were.

P

There were definitely some people that are that were arguing that either users can't see the address or that they're not going to pay any attention if they do see it. So the reputation argument doesn't doesn't really quite hold. I think it's important to this working group that there be a consensus on that question. So I'm asking the chairs to perhaps created as an issue or something of that sort.

B

That's a absolute fair request that sidebar Farah what the right issue should be in the tracker, but es.

A

Might be able to delegate back.

B

Jim, it seems like you're being asked to create the issue in the tracker will do.

P

That thank you, Thanks.

B

Okay, so we've just got five minutes left Aleksey Tim. Is there any housekeeping? We need to do Marie, or are we good to just see if, for any other questions now,.

Q

We should be good. Sorry I had a lot of background noise earlier, side-curtain actually jump in on stuff so but on the SPF plus. All that may be better in a BCP document. Then, in the d mark business stuff, just a suggestion.

C

Yeah I I just think it's a it's a reasonable topic for the working group generally. How do you want to deal with it's up to you right now, yep.

C

B

I, don't see anyone else in the queue anyone have a final thought or final thing they want to raise or thought was brought up at MOG that they want to bring up right now.

B

And some not seeing any oh there's Kirk go ahead. It.

I

Wasn't brought up at MOG but looking at the time and how we only have six minutes left or three and a half or something I'd like to find out from the chairs. What they're intending for the agenda in the July IETF 108 meeting, so that people can figure out whether to pony up the 300 bucks to join the discussion in July.

Q

That's a good question actually because I think some of that was going to be driven by what was going on during the mailing list. But I almost wonder if we schedulers look another interim. Those actually have a no-cost item, so there may be some relevance and actually skipping the 108 and then having an interim Ike in August, which would you know which wouldn't be would I would.

I

Vote for the yeah.

Q

I I actually would vote for that too. So, but we can discuss that among the chairs and see what how they feel about that, because that actually is like two months from now, and that gives us some time on the list of sort of hash out some stuff. So Steph and Lexie and I can work that.

B

Over but we were also very curious how this went and if we were able to transfer anything fog to this conversation. So we have some notes to compare.

B

That said, I Yan Pierre you've got two minutes, go for it. Okay,.

J

Just a quick one, now I wonder if anybody's in also tracking the bounces that come back from reports, I've recent only recently started doing that and in the in the beginning, I just threw everything away, but the amount of reports it just bounced is staggering and it's like 50 percent of deer domains. Only except, of course, roughly I haven't, got exact stats. Anybody interested in this or am I just completely working up a tree.

J

G

Tree this is Jesse um I, think that may be a symptom of the fact that reports are most useful while a domain is rolling out Demark and then after they're done, they largely don't look at them, so they maybe just delete the mailbox or something right. Yeah.

J

Yeah, that's what I figured so um maybe what I currently do is just greatly send less and less mail, but there's nice reports, but I'd always do nothing with it. So, okay, well and I.

B

Would actually take that back to the mall technical list and see if other people are seeing that operationally? Because if there is a signal there, that's actually useful to bring back to the IDF yeah.

J

Yeah that that's a probably good thing, I'll send a message to the morgue Demark list: I'm subscribed, I, think I just haven't been paying attention, but thanks for putting it out. Okay.

B

Everyone we're right at the end. Thank you all very much for participating and again, if you're here from Maude, you should join the IETF Demark list. We've really appreciate your participation. Thank you. Any final words from Tim Alexi, Murray Barry, just thanks for.

Q

Jenks retaining wall and for the good conversation.

A

Yeah, thank you. All I think this was quite productive, so we'll continue collaboration.