IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Recipient domain in aggregate reports (#23)

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.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 C09FA3A286A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2021 23:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.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 B_nRmjlPO89e for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2021 23:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3F43A2867 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2021 23:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44A2C9F149 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2021 23:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1620111593; bh=IeQizJOCuFunPWLzMIk8tJfMG4Zuy2KqBfy8L8ex4fg=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=HU5gCJqH1S5E6ZHKkoQGZ1qVEcCU4czram1+I1p1iVjP/VeYi5a9zYuk946rNPNHQ kOaGO1/H2wb2UrCLwzfMBYhCEXEYZa4J60z7yBskT9IugSfZoVmvnv70Tz53rL8J+D ebnB2gqVpg+YMvh5pm6ZloG9/VITSD/QAy0ubzzk=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1D991E43-2B3D-4941-8FDA-41CAF0BC5E78"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 07:59:51 +0100
References: <20210504024942.D79146F34FE@ary.qy>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210504024942.D79146F34FE@ary.qy>
Message-Id: <A93761D9-485B-4B98-957B-F886EFD4F646@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/7I9yMnN-xT2Ij0q_dUwB_HGkgQ8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Recipient domain in aggregate reports (#23)
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: Tue, 04 May 2021 07:00:00 -0000


> On 4 May 2021, at 03:49, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy  <superuser@gmail.com> said:
>> Is that enough?  If I control a domain, I can make up any number of
>> apparently-valid envelope addresses I want.
>> 
>> Using DKIM selectors for tracking will also put a huge load on DNS if
>>> implemented at scale [...]
> 
> Hi.  Passive-aggressive mail operator here.  I have an unlimited number
> of addresses in multiple domains (some catchall, some a long list of
> explicit addresses) and through the magic of wildcards, every outgoing
> message gets a unique DKIM selector.  (If you follow RFC 8198, the DNS
> load is insignificant.)
> 
> There is a long history of people who thought they did enough
> aggregation of various kinds of PII to prevent identification of
> individuals and later found out that oops, no, they didn't. So let's
> not even try that route.

I agree. My point was not “let’s make this better because...” My point was this is a very bad idea. I used a very personal example, but I’m 100% certain it is not the only relevant use case. 

My opinion is that EnvelopeTo: addresses should not be added to any DMARC reporting. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email