Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reports helping spammers? (#81)

The zeal with which the status quo is being defended suggests that
disposition reporting is pretty valuable to legitimate sending domains.
However, this situation complicates any effort to argue that such
information is useless and harmless for malicious domains.   Such a fine
distinction has not yet been justified.

I can fully endorse Murray's position that alignment reporting is
beneficial, even when the sending domain is malicious.   However, it is
also off-topic.   My focus is on disposition reporting, not alignment
reporting.

Bottom line:  The perceived risk of disposition reporting will differ with
each person, and therefore with each reporting domain.    The specification
would be improved by providing a way for skeptical domain owners to redact
information that they do not wish to disclose.   Currently, the options are
to (a) not report at all, or (b) report ambiguous and slightly misleading
information such as "dispostion=quarantine, overridereason=other".   A
better option would be to have options to state
"dispositioin=not specified, overridereason=not specified".

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:21 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Fri 22/Jan/2021 23:40:18 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> >
> > As someone said, the better the spammers align their stuff, the better
> > we can filter it.
>
>
> 100% agreed.
>
>
> > Close this, please.
>
>
> Please don't.  That such a doubt can cross the minds even of knowledgeable
> people is a real issue.  At a minimum, the paragraph I cited[*] should be
> restored.  A crispy further clarification is welcome.
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
> [*]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HRAR3hSdckw3mU_Gebh8vcYOjm4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>