IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Tue, 28 March 2023 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 06E37C1524DD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uF1Q4yfl_qS0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F6B6C15171F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id x20so13314383ljq.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680023787; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2pstSZRvAXAkDzGRjjx7RnRgI7Q60vBA0qTWFSkKr+E=; b=Rzj5UswgKctXgrk3bVMVLLnvWAjcpEV5syrLh02EGTN8E/sF6IXl2n/iNCE5EOvZRL P5wr7AYZh+IJnbHgoaLzKDkHHV+6k4zdKz7lQBQGRl1AUCgbs0m1ST3gUqOhb3jL5jr6 KxlvJPjvS2QVs83NBlrbJdKMDdGadqQnnlN2gMSs5JFh6Zl0DfLQ+TfkKuW+LEcftkSb y6pRr0y3fbUKhCnin88VajKFR5Z22BPpz79SrIt3RQZ0/3DYClVD7ZtnH0p3X0DoleWa m6xN0chs0tUXDevjKLW4LVi7EkhOFSgJ8VWnyDAMe+L1eG19ZHElwbSrJYCfst46fDHv FMgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680023787; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2pstSZRvAXAkDzGRjjx7RnRgI7Q60vBA0qTWFSkKr+E=; b=LXtuwfjdKT4XQSaVEG22S+EDeQb8VXYLn9v4SHdEGHCzuV0rrT/vwy+RMdo5+RB/Wa I08r77C51REuyosT8LbbmMbjWngdg3Ahe9mUP75AYFfo9tlbUUginU/es5UMybxcAOML DEIsF+Piib0c0gUREcnjqcJhLdofOEALDJpl8rQUmbZzk+0vsRBvkjBuQRUiKs7vS6xG Ei96b1yFTHaiaylWI9w5GbP3o5lhMoe/m/jIIoL59vSNv4CNDZax7fVjl70vs0Ru2pOJ fZhUS720FgzU8c/SsE5MJLjP+8IUc0jXHjDEvzl2WEnP9maBlKmKrGKAOJO6ls5XXlYc J84g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9ejjhd58xAkXp2xErwS80mLWSdA5F9k6UkDssrnb8Whr0reLeaN KxIdykkUmNmaSKg6CKO/QfnfnYDRjPvBLy3n0fU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350a32PS9Y/es8jEmuwZXq2cwXpqbfpNHhX+DrF2uqhyRzIO/hVnuLOZVREYf9NACR2e4w3o7mHzzBQ3VzMGR2+I=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a18:0:b0:295:93eb:bab1 with SMTP id f24-20020a2e6a18000000b0029593ebbab1mr4933697ljc.1.1680023786625; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <167993454302.11169.10772353959635417283@ietfa.amsl.com> <4313263.H7jo6l85BW@localhost> <MN2PR11MB4351233B049BF8B25F96032CF7889@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <2955537.Jt38lxfCpQ@localhost> <2c11f449-7839-7351-decb-b3724e221543@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <2c11f449-7839-7351-decb-b3724e221543@tana.it>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:16:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfxET4ZDjpVvoCNFP=+KB68UzUV7gYaHsE9y6EUL0bZ2yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000041d4105f7f90556"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jhDXWzKCh6_ci9XrDnz1E9gIaZM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 28 Mar 2023 17:16:33 -0000

Negative on software specifics.

A  general security principle is to not release configuration specifics
that could be used against you to exploit a product-specific vulnerability.

Doug

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 1:09 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Tue 28/Mar/2023 17:49:57 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I can live with it [the <discovery_method>] since it's optional (I
> > don't think it'll get a lot of traction), but I do think it's
> misplaced.  I
> > think it's metadata, not message data as it's about how the receiver
> processed
> > the message, not about anything that was found in the message.
>
>
> Agreed, it should be in <report_metadata>, before <report_id>.
>
> In addition, couldn't we add there also a <reporting_software> or similar
> element to write the name+version of the software that collected and
> formatted
> the data?  The <discovery_method> probably depends on that, but possibly
> also
> on local system configuration.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email