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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 20:15 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 C76133A095E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 yO7oid9I4J-8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (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 CAE973A0964 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id w5so9846075pgj.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:49 -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=Bc8J/FArbLgjQM1GiB0zKpDLAGxwHoYT2aXeDkHRLn0=; b=EjSjRFnT5qaQwZyefykYgA8EQBbLOsLrIsJHKp398lzBA6/lqUbsqu4ghk4uIvr/+d i7IDSb3HDldUKHgcjkGLMUdKA9z8pW+XQrlX4RxCqnceIRDu/woaSQOSXPcV5TzueOYP w4l81x3o/1UM7CIT9iYAfTz2o+IBJI3YhXCjSEE7ec7YNCsHPKB27dEeJ0w/VJDvP4y4 VmydIn2w8tdrIuJrHz5rq6pifTDYaJ0E0ECi2g6x7dUq+fl11qJqX+E3diE70uunJ6uM Q4BCQKlozJxQ0/c88gHsZV1XVopGo84mIsZM0vFX8ZNVr+wyGKqN/7kVulLns4ha126T FJOA==
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=Bc8J/FArbLgjQM1GiB0zKpDLAGxwHoYT2aXeDkHRLn0=; b=UdF7G/JnDQxXdR60b9botcIeT/W0zF8iLipUhs/H95K2mavg0jQQR6+FNDB6mT81Xd RFr39ZRNP0KUI/9LoNbz3MoCpWQnt+T+V0DJGQOrhYWnL9Zm8JlWBX9dJ98rF3Qg2n7H QxR4iXazS4WWMEOTgD6ZeH8tViSOEtKLSmqzMub0PbzeJGonJA6uEYapahiZeRPeVLI+ xljA9tXlTk56ea7JCS1yc/O6Hc2trnLBR6moqSWxrnpAy6gqjU6GlKTasC587K9fkduN 8iH2UcZCw1jjphomWLZgR9bjxypsXe8i6qBxN2a01DYB3tyS30l18dL57dX3Y5Kp5zF1 LX6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530v9zBckLZGdCc7QV/NOYh/aIZd+SjyT1PI0aQGAHfk64Giw3cF f7nVCquqya7JjdRa8QPPHWEiUEM0BP89ww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGWcEWJeQPzFua3ZzK2jBFypuna3Y18vJtD9ri8ZiCL34i6cJtfdbRPJjbg+v1Djole+ZQuA==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8486:0:b029:19e:307f:2941 with SMTP id u6-20020aa784860000b029019e307f2941mr26028611pfn.26.1609272948726; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ([107.182.37.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q26sm41323980pfl.219.2020.12.29.12.15.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:48 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201229201053.5A7EC34FD94A@ary.qy>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <14d833ce-0ae0-f818-fd4f-95769266a8e0@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:15:46 -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: <20201229201053.5A7EC34FD94A@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/jBofG7coZZOdDQSQTgz-mQgW_Ck>
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: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 20:15:51 -0000

On 12/29/20 12:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <5d0793ae-de65-cd1d-32ef-c909202a0eb6@mtcc.com> you write:
>> On 12/29/20 10:59 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Don't forget
>>>
>>>    o Normal forwarding of SPF validated mail
>>>    o Authorized third party senders with no access to DKIM keys
>>>
>> If by "authorized" you mean authorized by the originating domain, I don'
>> t have a lot of sympathy since they can delegate them a selector and
>> update their DNS. Not doing so is just lazy.
> A lot of tiny non-profits like Girl Scout troops use email addresses
> at webmail providers and send their announcements through ESPs like
> Constant Contact and Mailchimp.  This is yet another situation where
> DMARC can't describe an entirely normal mail setup.
>
> Constant Contact apparently got Yahoo to give them a signing key,
> at least temporarily, but that doesn't scale.

What gmail does for gsuite is generates (or not, who knows) a key and 
gives you the selector to add to your dns. I don't see why that doesn't 
scale for all situations.

Mike