IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.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 9F0493A1412 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.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 vRlWGCkBo6sA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831C13A0AFB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id i5so9359838pgo.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=6DOe9lxAZnFqqggi80+G4dJRDf5YkzNrCryoqEIdLGo=; b=Q9DsHdzoevPWKaZ13sbJbUPOpO18DTn55kyIUgK0gG7qNz9WrljyYwGgjggeneEYMw 3TWka79JSobr1zs6V9SXhm8Nd2I8zi/v1SzbeoO2tPpAXI3YFklZb1VHlMltFkYfLTGC oYXJ/XA3cUubh7/DXPYeVyMlTiD/Mgry4oPUTJ4rAzKm6LBzticdkH+Zr8RiqNzUc1eH o73fQZhgOfl4J2LfzjMND5TRQ1/8dUHE/z/AgO33GdaqG/8hgdYMeD04K8H260XymJ7G 7A+YOQaw/VsDndY+0kKGixDBihCx4OltncqIO4mSSPZtBtpP8JR26iiBvSkbvfWp297Y xE/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=6DOe9lxAZnFqqggi80+G4dJRDf5YkzNrCryoqEIdLGo=; b=p7AXE1mIwZF5adsSELUgaIr/WgaX2j/vEXPrY20z4/ppyypF+92tyJ9Zi5XPI/qAgM toMCw6QMHW8A31wqM5Q47HKJuO+1JBYadeZj7/r1ECyAZgAELcQakdr41OKISFg/omyf HqF7+wL10iZNTYZqvPmzeXgVoJ8lgvFvMAmyCkqtMihED68cFet+qrbFPx5wS5aU7/6w w3wg1Kj2cKeOVKs4AfM7TBpzOPGaJyhR9+FZfxtN/MFiFO8uPUyK/ghk2uhXrXwGKFH+ QG+qf6z7/IMnvjPx4jAWJX7i8zWUpMrr6yFftyVBKwmjtzq+b27a1rSnJwzwiCNeBTyc 5u5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mBVKJISQExgMhXd96UBs/BcnvSMe9GAz6uOmfUU0Bjj2kNRcL hshGGzAty6zGzXhW7dnZlPw+BN/Chk4JMA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLfH2fU0hsvmbA3SQSUxgfAGKStaEbJGBV5mphKsdo+6ftMRPVsm6g9VHDQOKecHshfp5Vsw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1707:: with SMTP id x7mr15480255pgl.266.1609253452342; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ([107.182.37.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gk4sm3308426pjb.57.2020.12.29.06.50.51 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:51 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201218023900.E73B82ACBB2B@ary.qy> <46339b38-3b24-bcb7-5e73-8a97038ed69@taugh.com> <3997c81d-3b30-0823-a752-fb1d60a44593@tana.it> <74a5c37-19a6-6f6f-a51d-6e5cca5b29e8@taugh.com> <CAJ4XoYdXWTgADpdL1eJuYGnpSY038vj-FW_x1f2rEp1JL0r2oA@mail.gmail.com> <01RTICXKLL3E0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <c5f7413e-52c1-6710-16e5-63f59d2c24b9@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwYDeV9CmFg9qCCGPse00JV30WRiSC4orC-EitK=hiahgA@mail.gmail.com> <a79dd75-4d73-d1dc-d6b1-272de866b950@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwZXu3FxH7QGBS7PGbeDwfDTGmC=rbPEQidVV4eDJNHLUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYeK2cJb+easc=mqCi4ap1932LmbDdfxM1dFZKrdo2a2mw@mail.gmail.com> <acfe3d9e-97eb-50ee-26a2-568fdd8359dd@taugh.com> <CADyWQ+GJ62jt=dL9Gzuw_O7USNbS=86BqAzu8Rdv9sCb5OpCdw@mail.gmail.com> <d4a00be5-bd61-0c05-3431-8d56b39a3550@tana.it> <8813331f-f5e4-faa5-c6d-11212fc25797@taugh.com> <5d150251-427c-5c44-a0c3-ad2e7f24b692@tana.it> <01RTP8I70EYI004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwafqVOGtzfM=2N6fB1pHcQJ6RRXpJeFBGh9qkTQ0wbnTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <7062260e-bcce-8d9f-6a18-d6d932d54a10@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 06:50:50 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwafqVOGtzfM=2N6fB1pHcQJ6RRXpJeFBGh9qkTQ0wbnTw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------59F679572491815FD6F908AA"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/VR_rAx0t4EB7IROi7RGbNfZA1sc>
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: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:50:55 -0000

On 12/28/20 11:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:23 AM <ned+dmarc@mrochek.com 
> <mailto:ned%2Bdmarc@mrochek.com>> wrote:
>
>     P.S. I hadn't looked at RFC 6589 before, and I  have to say I find its
>     standards-track status to be nothing short of astonishing. How on
>     earth do you
>     assess interoperability?
>
>
> With the benefit of hindsight, that's a great question. I'd have been 
> happy with Informational.  Indeed, the IESG evaluation record shows 
> several ADs brought that up, but none of them insisted, and thus it 
> didn't get changed.
>
What I had always expected to happen was, among other things, that MUA's 
would use it for like a web-like padlock too. At that point you have a 
protocol consumer. It's sort of disappointing they by and large don't 
from what I've seen. Hence my question on another thread DMARC fail, 
with p=none. That seems wrong and would definitely send the wrong signal 
to the MUA on how to mark it up.

Mike, who has now hacked on a thunderbird extension

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email