Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC forensic reports (ruf=) and privacy

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 06 February 2019 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 E4AA2130F50 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:25:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=NAe58862; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=hVh/+yLY
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 rgQr9jxKsz5S for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A34F130F4F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 45204 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2019 23:25:53 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=b092.5c5b6d01.k1902; bh=gHNkk72bOkb1giNqUPea3ki8dxby+qKCNvRfG1IG0HY=; b=NAe58862vJOai5E8N+PuZyXTZPeVZZw4pzMqWndYnto1wqE9Bhu803RtzkWE/JalskHY2BZCjJKRarM+wsCSEeVaUOE+a3eY6kAYWTMdaHybC5oPjlUgcv5o158p0spciuGQ36YnRnOqpI1hdWC/bWHba8enhpHz1Eq9dm0HjlKdzCCxPLQIXCeIwQtbA3+S1J9WWoSKKQ17t19vBbX97ZdKNpu0A+AkmfHFU1K2VJGkOhB7BkYkWZO5b2JPNviA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=b092.5c5b6d01.k1902; bh=gHNkk72bOkb1giNqUPea3ki8dxby+qKCNvRfG1IG0HY=; b=hVh/+yLYrE0lfhPCckp/9TRqoSdKNFzxlCotkFQK354LbhOxLmMFHYVQ8xLtVhr1sGCWJihqXccdHNFJ0ihuWPEc65LvKJXbRSIPsF3VbSi4JeOpXwmlMC9ZnU9b4gcpS7kolIdXbCewZAhFHj4vtfLR5eOD15qNzMbtB22lI41gv3levqPq/jQSUfZ4I/m43PjSKSGBN4NFDVcVIYc1MtTMMw9cwNeKDr7IxVos94MIie7Ocl13/EWw/qyGnWHn
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 06 Feb 2019 23:25:53 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4C281200DE5492; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:25:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: 6 Feb 2019 18:25:52 -0500
Message-Id: <20190206232553.4C281200DE5492@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <e5763e2e64cae01a7b53f94e521b9f2d103f6708.camel@aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2GiT0Mid25xsoWpcnNfE61OEc4E>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC forensic reports (ruf=) and privacy
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 23:25:57 -0000

In article <e5763e2e64cae01a7b53f94e521b9f2d103f6708.camel@aegee.org> you write:
>Hello John,
>
>DMARC reports for p=none are not supposed to be useful, as they do not depend on the policy.

Sorry, but that assertion is completely wrong.  Please see RFC 7489.

>If the question is about how to get reports on failing DKIM validation only on unexpectedly smashed
>messages, then I
>recall the last discussion on Ietf-dkim@ietf.org:

No, that is not the question.  Please review the previous messages.

R's,
John