IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 26 January 2019 15:36 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 CF645130DCB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:36:54 -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=xFJ/Q9lU; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=BvexV8rF
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 lF6X_Q7lC408 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:36:53 -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 46635130E58 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 93236 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2019 15:36:50 -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=16c32.5c4c7e92.k1901; bh=DJtD8orXJzp4zdmxm1B9MIiJkBmi9MrhZvTV5xgS1Dc=; b=xFJ/Q9lUYk/S8o/wzENr9YBx4ZkkgNXJeJ114woUBl3HYRg606n5NNiwc4wGVJ8nlgam0d3tRMmZp4Kel6eVeu6ETVrc9P1gORHiKycKA7k4bgvvQkRBqy8nrkYe/0HmUwCeiBSLivcxlYcCHAE4KKEkyOX1jrEPXxDT6esUyep70LChbS2rH8vZpNXPa69O4Ts0OYeXaD0AugFHWnMWamiWSqq4tDJookz8Yzja9G8zO5JSLoyH22+TG1fKTyjm
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=16c32.5c4c7e92.k1901; bh=DJtD8orXJzp4zdmxm1B9MIiJkBmi9MrhZvTV5xgS1Dc=; b=BvexV8rF9e74FophUqNQI3aZO8h//1zE/naEFFztJb9nW0oKrAplO/YrBQNKFdRHSgJ++HXqhU0Dbdza88m1psD0gWkMErFsd9X5YITVStBQHjTCoyBYoTrValwGpDOyt20EfcSpUJQVedc0gt/5L/Xyi4yUiOcqy13JQiM1slHF1l04J0KDDoRKWPemE31Nh4K/kzOjZwpgJ79igi3oPX9p6U9g1bpMVCB9yvitvbQFgv81KaFACi3zXdBm//dv
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 15:36:49 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 491F6200D38D44; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:36:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:36:49 -0500
Message-Id: <20190126153650.491F6200D38D44@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <40a9f309a70254b799f8bc3e42cbec2f5cf9dd7b.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/UpF6780BQhXkikE3dZPvfeoqUcY>
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 15:36:56 -0000

In article <40a9f309a70254b799f8bc3e42cbec2f5cf9dd7b.camel@aegee.org> you write:
>What are the privacy concerns in this simple scenario that speak against sending a DMARC/DKIM report to sending server,
>telling that the DKIM validation fails?

The person reading the DMARC reports had enough authority to put a
record in the DNS, but that is not the same thing as being able to
read all of the users' mail.

In large mail systems, different staff have different roles, and very
few of them can look at users' mail.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email