IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 385913A10E3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:02:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 sG7kE5B4zeSB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:02:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (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 CEF083A10E2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id h4so1678935qkk.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 22:02:29 -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 :cc; bh=QlYiyNTePcJV4Ph4sDsFxQ200P6Zs0on15sihHNUhnc=; b=XBqRMndNdII2uSFjt7NARX3a1+lJ/KZHSwrpte0K4hViWR5nQSENymGWH2srKVFqsW HrrlrpWyPvDLneblGMyUDTMYpy41cYNkshLX4gzjRFlJ6j6omYfvhiHhY6kk/5LJHhRj 4DjXOiu7n7wM/Y3FOLM1dfbmUPNLK1eNE/Z/o9s1R5eCnlniZ9jjxEJTxbHtT2dCv70y 7O6uXwHDvoVs0GKix+8WlBRAhvezxdVt1rIc6YV7WeP3MbLMueYTx/+gSBmdBG/62yhD 6f7RsV4T1tJ1eip5/6cU3ghwsGJK5ZnGFDcah0J7SiCAQQOoVcZMx12yp4LRmRzDwDBT Q7AQ==
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=QlYiyNTePcJV4Ph4sDsFxQ200P6Zs0on15sihHNUhnc=; b=E36/nTLzHUXfVVLpG93qamC7or0alWdgC6ogI/wtguJmVXQb0Vlcn54TwxkJB0uHAL O5TjcViozsFj3KtgNXD8RS3vBcXNSAbDQ+QmeQIUVMDcr+Ye+R7EkUSBCf/r6cgAHhMg azr4rwJqzkOvY6DqhsYglc6k+zlgfRU/7uEmMQVgWHWf5KYiwGHp8Ia0rDwRqmeoDBMK cGDcg1NPH0PMTCGjaZAbdWsmU2n4UDLNYRC8Ge822WEsHB3WSS+OaB7LhwNOU2/I0gp1 XE+mwfd4KDcjIvpsynOWN2iWWuMDT3SXIqoArXbZiUZX9AeRd2SLyR+H+/cbumpC1W0R nAew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Uh7gJqNNb57aQLe/vysg8lNmWqfuz87cnbfwkyjNVIJnSjNi5 Pp77ZZfEdVnklRl/g7Y94AqrmTdk49PUG2imNKQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztmC5HLiYzwTllUUULekJ4/cCSiQkSoYQG49X6t0dOvBf/heMCI2uMzEgzZkHEC+rIe1xRsq9xEHlnovXCmgI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:478e:: with SMTP id u136mr3020103qka.64.1609912948797; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 22:02:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210104174623.2545154CFF9F@ary.qy> <FD45F9FC-46B0-40A9-ADC6-DDD7650D62F2@bluepopcorn.net> <ae77d9f-6f63-16ca-903a-7cb463a7b58d@taugh.com> <CABuGu1o2t7WaEOh+nsx3_MRUGgGHqKHzQ9302FM9-HL0GxvJvA@mail.gmail.com> <f15c8f53-8075-99a1-83c7-f687200e6a94@gmail.com> <f640ee95-ba0a-6aa7-1a14-2af1db151e27@mtcc.com> <050e8614-c088-a165-a733-35c5eee52eed@gmail.com> <cd3a41e8-cc4f-05eb-5c86-47b0047e8d08@mtcc.com> <d9e23994-8666-5c3f-3e42-9a12a2ed6daf@gmail.com> <CAH48Zfxef+5H7nh7ahHvaP+B=+i1OB7XfFB+ptkcWeDRt0o8Mw@mail.gmail.com> <9926b42c-f767-6355-a940-6862f2e4ffb8@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <9926b42c-f767-6355-a940-6862f2e4ffb8@mtcc.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 01:02:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYe+Wbs16WGLXf-33dzwg1bu6K73rS2RN=jNR4xcJ-FZHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006eb51205b8351173"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/iH9fPTavqVnXmNhDohpTw8_mkuM>
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 06:02:33 -0000

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:19 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:


> No it was an unalloyed good that you brought that up. We can use a much
> more data-driven approach rather than opinion and conjecture. It would
> be good for it to be required reading for everybody on this working
> group, and not snarled at as a heresy. DKIM itself was a leap of faith.
> 16 years later it is gratifying that we have data.
>
> Mike
>

DKIM was NOT a leap of faith. At the time there was plenty of data from DK
(Domain Keys) and IIM to inform those involved. Please stop making
assertions of "fact" which are simply not true.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email