IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 26 January 2019 16:31 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 B882C130E81 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 08:31:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=NqVqBRMe; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=k7LXmfft
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 h8wFzALKmOu2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 08:31:25 -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 101F9130E70 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 08:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2907 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2019 16:31:23 -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=b59.5c4c8b5b.k1901; bh=jZWmw/DwhG4+tTxxpbrMA3gG+oB81EA4s4tUcq9kKRY=; b=NqVqBRMeiuq52asj95oK8m5OSKBY1cMOLvXtKYTOdS4LWTnOsEE4RQeArnqgmwzMFQL/pn97VhOKb9QlSzTuHuuFXWwCM9LOCai7odpdS1V2eIR8ZnaKkf6QFbIBP3rO+bJh9SZ19+Auo4bPIlrpOwjc7IviO9vC6dTw9LKMiGwKZn+UZN0UcaS51cUjzv7S4sSFo4y2rlooG91roE/NK4XKtu08TPGx1Mups6Q3n4w0iogTVxrJAm2ctPT6imIX
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=b59.5c4c8b5b.k1901; bh=jZWmw/DwhG4+tTxxpbrMA3gG+oB81EA4s4tUcq9kKRY=; b=k7LXmfftEEKuzdhqUhIruuuCTORQcMYhnKbA38RvL26C4us0nid00qV33G/ITnn5tR9KiHxE3KP+Z7YKwf1c1zMrl+0d+s4V1QmKH7sVxHKATkiL9Qu8Zb5gRzgLWdTzILjeRIQ8YH/lbSt2F2rTNS06wQIB0cQEFy9n6JMddyMTZTvuHAOV2a65cmA9xcSu0OABGSCjt5oc43iyPEzwpmeLJOgy8DAUdgoD5SJSewz+CZKLge8t9s2NUZT/YvVM
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; 26 Jan 2019 16:31:23 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id AAA4B200D39816; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 11:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 11:31:23 -0500
Message-Id: <20190126163123.AAA4B200D39816@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <6a56a3831dd4651e0d7610ee0c90f50749a7203b.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/Kj9_2p-mV-K8CS9NqzjX_GSD-Do>
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: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 16:31:27 -0000

In article <6a56a3831dd4651e0d7610ee0c90f50749a7203b.camel@aegee.org> you write:
>How can a domain owner communicate, that its users agree to have investigations on forensic reports, where DKIM
>signatures failed (fot the purpose of avoiding repeating errors in DKIM signing/validation)?  In particular, that there
>is no expectation of the users that a deleted message is erased and that the domain owner, DNS staff and email staff
>function good as whole?

I suppose they could try to put it in the terms of service, but I
wouldn't begin to guess whether that would be enforcable or even legal
in places with the GDPR and other privacy laws.

More to the point, I wouldn't bother.  The failure reports are almost
entirely useless.  Of the ones I get, the majority are random Chinese
spam that happened to forge one of my domains on the From line, the
rest are from mailing lists where I wouldn't expect DMARC to pass.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email