IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #55 - Clarify legal and privacy implications of failure reports

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 D142E3A0DFC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:59:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Or9qwrj3sFeJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (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 5C1CE3A0DD9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id p12so1279866qvj.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:59:51 -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=kOhQzjbpQPrV7ZUyPvbawLo2a2QJKDQxkIzHrU1KBSI=; b=bm8+s5WS0kZlHEoxibO2XSQTpjuaK4dv9OPaCklBJOQL8FLHC6PKv9D9FXUuut1V5H Y21imEeWuI2YRmhU39ObvosQnaPOkK2rpHueNSM5T3C25wc15FZ69afy7ExXngkbl6o/ 230NyFS5LHsl1jmeZwIcfbvP3DJo94FzmwSZ60aRCSqAikgsKjicPdRl+MgHgzFn93cn tOmFuBNMAwq8fO5BMzvRcFQetnJxrvkirHr7z8QTYVhwoe1oSYd7zuYZklPGzXxfYWDf Yw3HZzE8eiLHPkTr6+v1p27ucGgkU1jfZ8WItsH6qUcLGECAaF84XxSdtERRRWFrg4FE KhAQ==
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=kOhQzjbpQPrV7ZUyPvbawLo2a2QJKDQxkIzHrU1KBSI=; b=B4qSfM1LCA5+U6lo+0xru8cY+Ru1fAV9d47G4FRvkMQ64hvRjF0Llynss08d7swK3C 2NaYJ4/PReT2uVLFFiprObJam1ARRUOoJiHm3GX7CMdTM2p+D/O39IPGgTBjsGOOpNw0 ibMDuSRb1AtxSTa4/GqXxTtFCWS5ldfMrDimMPsKEXMSwbTU/TyDbbddvjBGbtJPWevN UzkDbQ1cmn25+KYGaxAYFoTl4xJSqXwBSg1u69iPfG9W0LC5zC84o0rhVb7QbnrV1M5U 6U7Cno+EUKFzgm8VZzFDbs2g7jD6LscmBHKJTztcDRiWPAhL7HPQRN8UPeTyxevvesKL QsCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DHkBJrbQ/IHfGzR3ByzFUHLF2DYd6c58WWl+7LTV2iY6MLWaJ i7Xx9d5A7J+kwIkCcUozCTQpWeNfIseLA9rEyT4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKuFup1vDj8ABZknF/XciibJ2xwj9dMNZD5jmgQ7X2k2y9FtEJ18bNfJRj2XiarMi8JNKkS4MMP+TqAc0uGPg=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f283:: with SMTP id k3mr4171353qvl.48.1609945190382; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:59:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210104174623.2545154CFF9F@ary.qy> <FD45F9FC-46B0-40A9-ADC6-DDD7650D62F2@bluepopcorn.net> <ae77d9f-6f63-16ca-903a-7cb463a7b58d@taugh.com> <CABuGu1o2t7WaEOh+nsx3_MRUGgGHqKHzQ9302FM9-HL0GxvJvA@mail.gmail.com> <f15c8f53-8075-99a1-83c7-f687200e6a94@gmail.com> <f640ee95-ba0a-6aa7-1a14-2af1db151e27@mtcc.com> <050e8614-c088-a165-a733-35c5eee52eed@gmail.com> <cd3a41e8-cc4f-05eb-5c86-47b0047e8d08@mtcc.com> <d9e23994-8666-5c3f-3e42-9a12a2ed6daf@gmail.com> <CAH48Zfxef+5H7nh7ahHvaP+B=+i1OB7XfFB+ptkcWeDRt0o8Mw@mail.gmail.com> <9926b42c-f767-6355-a940-6862f2e4ffb8@mtcc.com> <CAJ4XoYe+Wbs16WGLXf-33dzwg1bu6K73rS2RN=jNR4xcJ-FZHA@mail.gmail.com> <67638446-094e-b598-adc5-dd540c69d487@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <67638446-094e-b598-adc5-dd540c69d487@mtcc.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 09:59:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYcOHiC-sHxd_h+cqjioSpiupjFpR82p21kZ_7nPNZErcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e439505b83c93e7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6y23CpCM0MonhEehyCQBPnTcqIw>
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 \(DMARC\)" <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 Jan 2021 14:59:53 -0000

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:41 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 1/5/21 10:02 PM, Dotzero wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:19 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No it was an unalloyed good that you brought that up. We can use a much
>> more data-driven approach rather than opinion and conjecture. It would
>> be good for it to be required reading for everybody on this working
>> group, and not snarled at as a heresy. DKIM itself was a leap of faith.
>> 16 years later it is gratifying that we have data.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> DKIM was NOT a leap of faith. At the time there was plenty of data from DK
> (Domain Keys) and IIM to inform those involved. Please stop making
> assertions of "fact" which are simply not true.
>
> Um, dude, I was one of the authors of IIM. You're literally claiming to
> know more than me about what was in my head.
>
> Mike
>

So all the data was in your head? I wasn't using IIM but was publishing DK
and getting feedback from Yahoo! and a few other receivers through private
channels. There were other senders in a similar situation as myself. And
yes, people were discussing things privately (Web of Trust groups). Your
claim that there was no data available at the time is quite simply false.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email