Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <> Sun, 08 September 2019 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D674F12008A for <>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AD4b4eLrgVv for <>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F98120074 for <>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1567941751; bh=SeONTV7IqBtKNxqoxUNptMJTcod+QS9q3l4uk8V0Dpg=; l=893; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DgzVd6TZ2WCl42Ju0pqwghtFaC6M/jPuUr4veniE2PmR+4rGaIfzUCJVB7+IFxild tV4jYPNTt1H6COyz3wzdhZ7vi3RQmHaz7hyXWEWyCaLvHKhJ6Rzp+Yja77yiqXKGeq hg9pPEFmAMW9pgB9goxDsZtcOFi84MEVU2ROBPScRM0tX5eb9iZ0lIN2p8L/Q
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC081.000000005D74E476.000052AD; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 13:22:30 +0200
References: <> <> <> <2922527.kgd3cNqxNO@l5580> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 13:22:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:22:35 -0000

On Thu 05/Sep/2019 15:35:29 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If we didn't care about privacy, this would be easy.  That's the hard
>>> part that does not have a clear solution.  One thing that is clear is
>>> that it's not the PSL.  PSL is a collector of assertions from operators,
>>> so it fails to meet the attributes laid out in A.1.>>
>> Failure reports are considerably less implemented than aggregate ones. 
>> The current spec doesn't mention any privacy risk in its Security 
>> Considerations section.  However, some concern must exist, otherwise the
>> difference in implementations cannot be easily explained.  The I-D at hand
>> touches on this point marginally.  A general consideration would better
>> fit in DMARCbis.>
> That's because there's an entire separate section on privacy considerations.

My bad English.  By "current spec" I meant rfc7489.