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

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 8A87C127598 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:33:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 a-6VETYO4sI2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (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 8301D1274D0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id x28so1172090vsh.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:33:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6cO75r2UH2JwFbzP8otcEfAl73T5B4pJwAqpqhRvZrQ=; b=kycaoon6uW+SX8Ab/rxsHM0zDS0mpuuzED6zhutbannvSDfA1sS15d23eyhkp9cVq1 N2vXO/My4DcZDYrWW/HzA9ZY8lhPLytOnIH6zz5AqTUYLAQT0BUZt33nvMggjoP/Oxjs QaMbGDivfsYPwvxkKFXi5KnW8ENPGxP7cdQ5aGh+KbT4JOMGbCjaf7KCM12SAEKXaTox yPzKlvwhiqikAdBR73QaseBf8ozvoJk4SmI0L1hQoq2Zskn0pev5X9JaniTjbCarftC3 Kxi3P6vgU5jOgSlerxbQFxB/Cwg3Pl2ha58OjncEJhRvubtZZos2mYGLzyYJr7beu4ZR +reg==
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:cc; bh=6cO75r2UH2JwFbzP8otcEfAl73T5B4pJwAqpqhRvZrQ=; b=db/m6Eb03rZlXFW/+GCJjuy2a9/ECs9Caz2/NaEAHJUxgvB9mstPGcDUA82R4Aaan8 GzKt7xAUC95ROb4gehShqxlNlxQ4goGXZNhKzz2qSJjqHgKedY1D+isSTa6XZFcbAd/u 3USXVHqF+OZiDFEfYpl4WmlTLpJ5hxc98GbkRvW1dnM/eVRn/X//DU+srhdTHUB0LOtZ wUF6bJlEHdG7t8wuTwLXKIbkRleOoqLIhpfxa06V+aJWbUKwYr3Oxg/1IEzily8OdKTx VYJSC8XgxLMrQJZb3k1EMz38NdNQLGtaIWy2bZgrH9Xa3H5vhRhW+Jm+qpeu/+kOQtbY CsnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubVI6slaYoaeTyP43m7K/VRnc2OivEBPGoDKrkIP/zxBabLtDTe wNDpxkZcQgMhB0/7BI+MSPj09aIKgeypqSMEiDcx
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia5EX3dfy6U6QLNJtlq1dxZ+sJECoL1Zh1NMPJKReKeKJ9DwEPaWfeVnQTPPwEJPOsyo2CBelBAIqWNcM9IajE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:dc92:: with SMTP id g18mr8095903vsk.76.1549589626053; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:33:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e5763e2e64cae01a7b53f94e521b9f2d103f6708.camel@aegee.org> <20190206232553.4C281200DE5492@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20190206232553.4C281200DE5492@ary.qy>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:33:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6vA97w09SYy4px7faFx3ZERR5nz32e0x3=UFKYoLK=nQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000035f854058157f3b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fnKo-lj48jfT4EHCDxqGW_3OR8U>
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 01:33:49 -0000

The reason you want reports at p=NONE is so that you can fix the issues and
then move on to higher enforcement levels.

And mailing lists aren't the only way that messages can be modified.

Brandon

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:26 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <e5763e2e64cae01a7b53f94e521b9f2d103f6708.camel@aegee.org> you
> write:
> >Hello John,
> >
> >DMARC reports for p=none are not supposed to be useful, as they do not
> depend on the policy.
>
> Sorry, but that assertion is completely wrong.  Please see RFC 7489.
>
> >If the question is about how to get reports on failing DKIM validation
> only on unexpectedly smashed
> >messages, then I
> >recall the last discussion on Ietf-dkim@ietf.org:
>
> No, that is not the question.  Please review the previous messages.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>