From nobody Tue Jan 5 17:11:30 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA5B3A1078 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:11:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 m9BWnSKAOynv for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua1-x936.google.com (mail-ua1-x936.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::936]) (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 9A9BE3A1075 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 17:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua1-x936.google.com with SMTP id t15so567228ual.6 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:11:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9PsUPPFFsEdtmhQWfYy1ttufJ5xWJd7hx2q7roNCDaE=; b=kR0CGauSgVNIzlVOOH5Nmd7IzFhLc1gigva7rmE2c844334lMdC4kHnd1i/zCYbL4h 0tFBVRFr9+8wn9Bl51w5eYO1DW+LUROFkKuTxhYj47yCTp8AELHsD8sVrfIFNddWrKog ZyBQE/+3JQbDhcqhgs+AGRuFn/z3NYwcwMwlkn9F0d4sGtuu17m0IC4v0i7pAb5W3dog FrKrFgEdsyABrEzNjaLRKZegOPSSfMWwKoPoVh+0qIkI4YDo8VIn7Bs4yAmyd2H9JYBg q9U3p/JBuRUWs7N9Twa0MnVoFLiI71AhEid4jdT5VjpOMWmd4K4UYIlBKUXe/66iPebM tDkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9PsUPPFFsEdtmhQWfYy1ttufJ5xWJd7hx2q7roNCDaE=; b=ttbqUL+0C9lbip3zi95fQp+21x6ljX4W2qmEROWhWGIhenN23BQfD7Nz2AxenDyO23 1nxIgZimzvX13UQFnIk+J/OwlQR/KpxaFEaek7axML8rGuowL/oCVGlNVpXaqPClfCdB jQdDVuU3eHq7Yi3x6HWeC+LHYO6nd2jcws4UzYTjgmTnuuAW+8bOnALDlnJhqyRPgd/Z ghRqAMuPZ4WpxDnnqel4OzgLjVrhj/tFuZR74fmvnUm2Rriol34T2gRUOraGFgr4ucfZ aKk/6IyvJztzRyZy5Zl1Ppq5exJBc2YT5pg/PvGLvPkckLVe942GiOKd3Pf9km7o7Re/ PMBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BoYDcbc2MO38EATtkDd2doMWqg5NL1QGA3Wl7viO0S2FVQ0pz E7khoUYrNhqRFOzjiXtfvC0L6N4kRCcOrEFLEGQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpXpo3iYOMnWLajBmXvlQUheT5b4ggsXGnEtOiGb5UlqfuD+NlHBD5pnySk5L+TCyM7eVIIZvkOw9dsbRFNIA= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:770d:: with SMTP id z13mr714275uaq.110.1609895485719; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:11:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210104174623.2545154CFF9F@ary.qy> <050e8614-c088-a165-a733-35c5eee52eed@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Douglas Foster Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:11:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: Dave Crocker Cc: Michael Thomas , IETF DMARC WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008d478005b83100d0" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #55 - Clarify legal and privacy implications of failure reports X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 01:11:28 -0000 --0000000000008d478005b83100d0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sorry that my name was dragged into this. The study in question was one provided by Laura Atkins several months ago. I forwarded it to Michael to bring him up to speed. To date, it is the only study submitted to this group. I was not trying to introduce new information or re-ignite this fight. The chairs and our charter call for us to proceed with DMARC as a tool to control misuse of the From address, which is also what I want. To that end, we want to make sender, intermediary, and forwarder interests converge as much as possible. Our strategy is for intermediaries to provide sufficient information for an evaluator to fairly judge whether a particular message is in his interests or contrary to them. By my analysis, we are not there yet. The particular information that I seek to achieve this result is the following: (a) know whether forwarding action(s) have occurred during transit (b) reconstruct the message identity state prior to the forward(s), so I can evaluate the message based on both the intermediate and final message states. I cannot reconstruct prior state using most ARC sets, because ARC only provides an identifier if that identifier was evaluated. Even then, some of the identifiers are provided in comments or not at all. Evaluating the message based on its prior state requires a complete set of identifiers. DF --0000000000008d478005b83100d0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry that my name was dragged into this.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The = study in question was one=C2=A0 provided by Laura Atkins several months ago= .=C2=A0 =C2=A0I forwarded it to Michael to bring him up to speed.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0To date, it is the only study submitted to this group.=C2=A0 I was not t= rying to introduce new information or re-ignite this fight.=C2=A0 The chair= s and our charter call for us to proceed with DMARC as a tool to control mi= suse of the From address, which is also what I want.

To = that end, we want to make sender, intermediary, and forwarder interests con= verge as much as possible.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Our strategy is for intermediaries = to provide sufficient information=C2=A0for an evaluator to fairly judge whe= ther a particular message is in his interests or contrary to them.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0By my analysis, we are not there yet.

The pa= rticular=C2=A0information that I seek to achieve=C2=A0this result is the fo= llowing:
(a) know whether forwarding action(s) have occurred duri= ng transit
(b) reconstruct=C2=A0the message identity state prior = to the forward(s), so I can evaluate the message=C2=A0based on both the int= ermediate and final message states.

I cannot reconst= ruct prior state using most ARC sets, because ARC only provides an identifi= er if that identifier was evaluated.=C2=A0 Even then, some of the identifie= rs are provided in comments or not at all.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Evaluating the messa= ge based on its prior state requires a complete set of identifiers.

DF
--0000000000008d478005b83100d0--