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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 28 December 2020 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 AC4783A0C57 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:14:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 WfkygDW8Lqxv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (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 E595F3A0C53 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id o11so9539122ote.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:14:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pLrsFqdk4O7eCDCCYux2liEC5Mvpq6qf5rxbB1CfTIM=; b=m4kKvVK0DFS6raS8qncufD8V6aBV6f5MieGYpm0326LBLaNBLI4327rZg30myiP04u A0DRjCeAbvfQmeBCTNKG4sZrxReiF6ArkKt9gBys0xKbiQDp3k3ira+xEOCPPhUFwnfN KVYUsvEe4+uKlO/ra8lOm/ULSzfA8Hd99jj2ECwpnL1ghHtm9GCw+RdPsctqhACPdDpp 8bT+SqmQjGJMXtpdx//3WdPXZ872sY3VI4DcPkk5R3mBKD9rx/QKQQMRAt8KIUAoK+gQ 011RLB5am5EH75ja1qIw68MAPUjfGIY7uUEIL387VMnKZNz5oU7bDtQtEyFeZRkQye3c 1GvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=pLrsFqdk4O7eCDCCYux2liEC5Mvpq6qf5rxbB1CfTIM=; b=aRn3r5q+bxRYj/4juUj37tfPm0ju6iPDmq0qbZw8k1OxUrvJmMfAwyrTj/izHs9dL4 wXlIKVc5akrMfkh4lPvI9FGyMXCBWd4CPjIJncWDzsv4XV0l17DZdI3xXHF9lTamaDwk PvEgZgp3GqKJe7jMego2w0WKGjHMNBW9vdsfaqVM7nVvyNs4wwFyoWEOkwKB2Muq6Qm2 nItep0ObKaI7fk+tapyGZTBcMNHC4LVEhTUHFC7vDIxtxLmyciLwi0oyGjzFyi24B3ZN Lt6DG6MLnRrQ4YvAMChBg5TDPNRzaFFmSdlm3KjtFlxIEB7ykEP9/IOTa2uPAxgat+BD LVqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dd9jfDhfESACWLyCj5ZJuWU6+6QH/B+CLRcFeyfUaPRctjJGf oHRBgjoCjj/qjd8ld4NFekh6rdmlD/aRx0TjK9z4oou0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLDiYR6mflebkYQcQcSQudnQe3ESqqOIU/dNCXdLig3Dcz9ORWKfRZusNsiWrS56pPg1Mi39cMkfbkYyq/LTo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:104f:: with SMTP id b15mr33929802otp.155.1609172092938; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 08:14:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201218023900.E73B82ACBB2B@ary.qy> <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> <CAHej_8kpT2ooFoJdsj1X+AV90HEA29yABJVp+EhrpJNXxWpnOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdFHZEras4JC5K04i+PAukWCTBBnwr0zw_CYwDOAe6Sng@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8kw6JV-wQKOs1yd_z0RsZe=wuew2+ZSJrmY35j-VCcwFw@mail.gmail.com> <3cd0c105-4864-2cbc-7d4c-3a27ccb2dce4@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <3cd0c105-4864-2cbc-7d4c-3a27ccb2dce4@mtcc.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 11:14:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+EfQjRbCpSR-Evot-3NM66XHURHFNssrudg4YsHxF8YOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb6ae105b7889225"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Wbf0P6aEE9vaoTu9EUz5j-PUFgQ>
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 16:14:56 -0000

I would drop that whole third sentence, and mention sending such reports
may contain PII.
The document can refer the reader to non-IETF documents for information,
but in general
we do technical standards, and stay away from policy decisions in standards
track documents.


tim


On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 12/28/20 7:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
>
>  not a lawyer, but providing A with some information about a message that
> A sent to X seems different, from a privacy perspective, than providing A
> with some information about a message impersonating A that B sent to X, and
> I thought perhaps the generic warning might mention this distinction, if
> possible. Something like:
>
> Security considerations
>
> Failure reports provide detailed information about the failure of a
> single message or a group of similar messages failing for the same
> reason. They are meant to aid domain owners to detect why failures
> reported in aggregate form occured. It is important to note these
> reports can contain either the header or the entire content of a
> failed message, AND THAT THE DOMAIN OWNER RECEIVING THE
> REPORTS MAY NOT BE THE ORIGINATING PARTY FOR THE MESSAGE(S)
> REFERENCED IN THE FAILURE REPORTS. IN ANY CASE, THEY may contain
> personally identifiable information, which should be considered when
> deciding
> whether to generate such reports.
>
>
>
> This is a tempest in a tea pot. This is an issue with the originating
> domain and nobody else. They can send it to a third party even if the url
> lists them to receive the report first.  The receiving domain can't know
> what they will do with the report, and the originating domain has already
> seen the mail in clear text before it was sent. IETF should stay out of the
> business of being nannies that it has no way to enforce.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>