Re: [perpass] draft-josefsson-email-received-privacy

Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net> Sat, 24 October 2015 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jacob@appelbaum.net>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305A61A1BA2 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ELYtMXMFnfQv for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F55C1A1AB8 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfv8 with SMTP id fv8so70900167wic.0 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WwaqWOsSJFy/MVbz7ytpOpXJ2yDUb9ntJPKYdqVukq8=; b=hj2DLPozAboY/GG33QgS5AKUqUPqMDBv4ABcY7uxQ50w4LHDXGczaiSf+KOAKseQmo pbhqVWIPKt2OLofogvDNu/VqJt7j1uiQNeU+b7ZzeB/GE2oGqXJY5d6+WiKcPlVDQOlP Dg7ioEuUYcqx3Jn650RqmSdWjZH2omAXc656RcTFa2YWaukww6pWm7Jq5eCiI6dfhSBd OyM6IXBjV7STfGGPcpnM+te61TAC0MSx5ercu8InjpyONMGhOpJZG02xXmdbnOoEDUsA A0dawOkP5TOsOWV4BafnD8CCWvy06qf3MiKoVpPbSJzjT3qMya/pSIrtvFQU2wJVvAVc 8MZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBS90ZC7VQFi7+M9/ePz1xVRd+tqD+uHiDemEH2geVLkBNhMOIorrb/uiw+AvC30SELQhH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.9.233 with SMTP id d9mr11479187wjb.129.1445721134989; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.173.17 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [171.25.193.25]
In-Reply-To: <871tcl3f03.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
References: <87r3kpmm25.fsf@nordberg.se> <01PS6UMHPA8S01729W@mauve.mrochek.com> <871tcl3f03.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:12:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFggDF27Dc1ET85wnh_UUkZ4LXn_1A9_BEDsXN0cBsg3dCSXWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/McyrZW2XxjUYzu-PlezwF1oI1j4>
Cc: ned+perpass@mrochek.com, perpass@ietf.org, Linus Nordberg <linus@nordberg.se>
Subject: Re: [perpass] draft-josefsson-email-received-privacy
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:12:18 -0000

On 10/23/15, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
> Hi Ned,
>
> Thanks for looking at the document!
>
> We are happy to make this more inline with what you and others are doing
> or suggest to do.  With the -00 we wanted to get the ball rolling, to be
> able to discuss what to do about the problem.  We don't care strongly
> what the particlar approach is as long is it does its job.  Given the
> responses so far, I believe we even have some work to do on getting the
> problem statement itself right, let alone the proposed solution.
>
> I agree with you about the problem related to loop detection (RFC 5321
> section 6.1), so agree that it is a valid argument for not making the
> header optional.
>
> Jacob Appelbaum brought up that the trace information about what
> authentication parameters were used can be interesting and does not
> appear to be a significant privacy violation.  So that's another
> argument for retaining the header.  He also mentioned that timestamp
> information are problematic due to netflow related data.
>

I think it should be possible to produce a general timing and to state
the crypto (or lack of crypto) used for transmission.

> I agree with your recommendation to retain the Received header but
> modify what to put in it.  I believe the FROM clause should be removed
> completely, or we put in a "magic" (syntactically valid but semantically
> invalid) IPv4 or IPv6 address in it.  Similarily, implementations could
> put a magic time-stamp value in the field if they don't want to reveal
> when they received a particular message.
>

Those both seem reasonable.

> When I look at the ABNF for Received in RFC 5322 I'm confused as I don't
> see how the normally used Received: headers on the Internet (i.e., with
> 'FROM', 'BY' etc clauses) actually conform to the 'received' ABNF token
> or the 'obs-received' token.  Is this a RFC 5322 bug?  The BNF in RFC
> 822 and RFC 2822 appears to work.

A feature!. ;-)

All the best,
Jacob