IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 02 January 2021 18:47 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 D081E3A0CE0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 10:47:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 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, 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=iecc.com header.b=kr63DT+D; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=lGw4Zf0C
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 0moXhEMizoRw for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 10:47:23 -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 121FB3A0CDF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 10:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30916 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2021 18:47:20 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=78c1.5ff0bfb8.k2101; bh=QAJbsUlBUiVnsbjbrHNIQQoYgBnSespZC3ZjzqziWx0=; b=kr63DT+DYfvxr0AJAWqN/ZUF6bZHERYkJzeATq6zcfryT1xwCaaiWhMrsWRMJNberUsK/s20kO8FNNtX8PODjqcHq2/1viIauc8uqna9WKaDXgL5yA/iB6h4ia0lHKgwlCXDcUdcxq1KgHasN2dSK8Vb3GWj+Z+UKSysfg70F7RMeZVza6ftWFbpYnpr3EGzpSvd3sSHVkJ1D0YZ/DfO7wnCKmz86/QGz2uULLZ1vjNzLYtz3Z1RMppTUs1PSQAinugN1Z73B7A7fo83rkUmjeAkEH9awT1GGFnV0dJrPBH+lzctFVXTAJouUQpkweVAXXUwP4DqSfxZhY6ChrUdrQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:reply-to:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=78c1.5ff0bfb8.k2101; bh=QAJbsUlBUiVnsbjbrHNIQQoYgBnSespZC3ZjzqziWx0=; b=lGw4Zf0C2kqfkDq36xqjWHTG7tcrpaBeYmTqvl7S6Po+OARRullwxASlA6Zzf7h+01sd9QPnZcZx26ESVPuDrDbVRGLHYjexfFJk67H6HO2fuLtnFXO89Ab0521jspEOJah6rBqXuiqhk9RkzjpNXD83vA/uqMWZakHsTK/Fc0faSXy1JVUc7Tr+7MCMmgxU7t6u8acwnYOG3t9oSGurYS0k6tDYClSAN0Xqh8WfI9rKLzlArlfc8+l72tthutx+cImqHnfYPg00R1nmJWhC8elX1Ee91pPYHuEeQVDm3FwYrxh58f9uV5Z5rV/UhR/UtRKqzkTr5rBUT/k78Q7F8A==
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 (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 02 Jan 2021 18:47:20 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7CACA4A147E9; Sat, 2 Jan 2021 13:47:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 13:47:18 -0500
Message-Id: <20210102184719.7CACA4A147E9@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Reply-To: uucp@examp1e.com
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <8f438ed3-88cb-58dd-6a12-630e4000ecf9@tana.it>
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/PxKwVmy5Ac709ZTRMi-RkOY1vAk>
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: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 18:47:25 -0000

In article <8f438ed3-88cb-58dd-6a12-630e4000ecf9@tana.it>,
Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>> The entire problem with catering to the long tail is that it is holding hostage 
>> better email security. We should stop doing that. There is no right to stasis 
>> forevermore. If the scouts email breaks, they can get somebody to fix it. They 
>> will thank us in the long run when scammers can't phish using them as a prop.

I agree too. I'm pretty sure there are more small organizations using
provider e-mail addresses than little private mail servers sending
less than 1000 messages a day, so let's declare both of those out of
scope. Or maybe not.

>I agree.  Setting p=none makes DMARC non-actionable.  I, for one, keep p=none 
>because of mailing lists.

I keep it because none of my domains are particular phish targets and
I would prefer to get my mail delivered, even the part of it that
DMARC can't describe.

R's,
John

PS: This really is off in the weeds, isn't it?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email