IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate Reporting Draft

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 01 February 2023 21:07 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 C3154C15152F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:07:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b="j69ttqGg"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b="lfCHwPQy"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvu35eZEE2yj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B10C14F738 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27259 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2023 21:07:12 -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:cleverness; s=6a78.63dad480.k2302; bh=iIRkK8GR+Jup/7DGXNa3wPaGegFcmlnqatHc1YqHnqY=; b=j69ttqGgD4JjAUv/s4wQ+ihNp7VrFjrcH4vmFeguJcLDj5aMSC1d5DWRzHjlA5oPFT4SE5jSvp9qRNPIBnEsrZyUn35UDbepQW2M0N74cTrBsJuS5pDqtwLOgZwQnT0xw4z7DajX7CmDRTVL3UP0mOOQ4lpT080bcFPNEWfxbGrsOw73n0jBufpZSLaWkf4YE4K+5gnPRl336G82/4lSu2xyxCudjfTKuXuLz+XCie4ZIVYL6d4UTbOdY+DzYSKyqfBmsocWNiIy6aJhbUnxkmXDmxd2aHlMjpwZ0jsFEpg/fZazKPhgvAOeqq5Mjs80Oy5GDp8ZBNbu6kqVl/YG4A==
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:cleverness; s=6a78.63dad480.k2302; bh=iIRkK8GR+Jup/7DGXNa3wPaGegFcmlnqatHc1YqHnqY=; b=lfCHwPQyQr2RR6xJl1ZAPWJl3Z0hX0ajwDa1OVEXRmNmbhBa3sh6tuG5MchOU7jk+7xeW0Pj5lfnnDergtx41CswKfffdsBYKuG7ezjt+I+s2dF7fH2zKUqURoIWKlaF9KBkAn278FefWLh6Aa0h9AoZdJ9Rwm6E0MKpcdF3zNsauqIt4MWFtXYxrqnj4dj8C5+p+aB0nep6WFz9LrmzlNDCHe2fe7TLETcIlxSIXK9S2EixceD38ZhjiIjHKL/tMtLMU8y/1ZvryAXvVpeRrVnQ64UhHzrADEoIs3iZV0cjBLiz0ntAIgopzbzBr7h9NabS7YNZhotUXRNdrYogDg==
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 ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 01 Feb 2023 21:07:12 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id B2ACF86BE8D9; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 16:07:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 16:07:11 -0500
Message-Id: <20230201210711.B2ACF86BE8D9@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <1986598.AJv8QXXSZU@localhost>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6-SWHQVmIvLlpjSuZr5zSVTtUdo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate Reporting Draft
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 Feb 2023 21:07:19 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>I agree there's no chance a PSD like .com would be authorized to publish a 
>DMARC record, but a big part of why is the privacy implications of allowing 
>it.  I think we should document the concerns.  ccTLDs will need to develop 
>their own policies and we should give them the relevant information to support 
>that.

That's reasonable.

>DMARC record or not.  For a mail receiver I think it's reasonable to assume 
>any PSD (psd=y in their record) should be treated conservatively and only send 
>reports for non-existent domains. 

That's OK with me although it's not what the draft says now. I can do
a pull request. I hope we agree that a non-existent domain is one for
which a DNS query returns NXDOMAIN, as the current dmarcbis draft
says, and not anything else.

Fun fact: we don't define "policy domain" anywhere although it's blindingly obvious
what it means.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email