IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 04 January 2021 17:58 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 048613A0ED1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:58:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, 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=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 e0KcNcc7hpkr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (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 DECAE3A0EDF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id b5so57337pjl.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:58:56 -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-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=MzokzmIFgM0A3kRYNd+v4rjMKnXk4yLSGztbvNxof9o=; b=LmBwaiSiknM7necNEIFmiAKKGV01Jf7brZwGC6MaZhwV+48XZ99JABqJvV9tMh9TU5 tLLxAC8hWCAcsp4dco6VlA9RYAi/ggInh35HRwMMW4yy0NWs19UKYuawzGRll3X72PcL jIkAH+PcErnthJQnk2fXZL0TyA4bx2JBcTZurWnPBYD9T4fEgegqD0H0nfiPwlx6eNVZ bkskdRmDTsZVybD6zTRMjx9DeJqjzTkG0zhNJrkr4L86+FjCzq9Qe8rzVlXhJc7BbrST Yt41l+OzGZmqpSaAqBMRYyz/AuHM2zrdszEK76y3U5v26kVDQSntNSdM7gZUUIJzIrfL 4TZA==
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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=MzokzmIFgM0A3kRYNd+v4rjMKnXk4yLSGztbvNxof9o=; b=Mym9sTpTG73HSj/e96PnU9zcL9M/GdsS0T60rlc5Jqe1hCKOLtI5syblLbtI5dlCJD rk4/L+Gb2ePsZuraEXYuFQqJh2PVXUakDiuDIjmcqmepJXert0Ru5+kgqc+gPMQ0bL0R M81zWX8Se7LPTl4gl8aSyvE6eOv3EqS+Fi9eMnXhPgEmrWYvErWdId/T40x8M/m2CY4J nl0amWwd3+ODAT9eN2KlncuHWt7mxQDXyZPkuFybuKbjbQ8dUeW3PTFXEuhO9ELaSRSS AEKDaP5R4bANmJjFJbOotvuYZWoF5aiKYN0TvPpTgs16egogh4ms6GmfNnGb0ExbZJP9 7ZNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xC0WMfrrgoWDxEtVZwJg13u/xuoupuAqPzKIGRaNnijilpYah Y7HgiprtTQhLHPYewgZb7beyZoUk+E/gjQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYlo8jylIDE9iKl1QarTa8i1anOh1/RqlVi30n78qDSkF+f2Tab42cMsUoMniwd/vkRDX4UA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9d88:: with SMTP id k8mr32470pjp.141.1609783135835; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-39-88.volcanocom.com. [107.182.39.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p4sm31153pjl.30.2021.01.04.09.58.54 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:58:55 -0800 (PST)
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210104174623.2545154CFF9F@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <f7d2d6da-d74e-7def-6a65-a18f3cb3171d@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:58:53 -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: <20210104174623.2545154CFF9F@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/auakK8PF8PJ3Uxa4Sqvc_9ynd_I>
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, 04 Jan 2021 17:58:58 -0000

On 1/4/21 9:46 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> Similarly, DMARC alignment tells you nothing unless you also have a
> reputation for the domain. I have trouble imagining why anyone would
> think it's a good idea to get alignment by using third party domains
> that recipients don't know.
>
You don't need to know anything about the originating domain if they 
have a p=reject policy to do as they suggest. For many domains and 
especially commercial domains that is probably exactly the right thing 
to do.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email