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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 05 January 2021 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 1A32A3A0E96 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 15:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 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, 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=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 eQsPcOik0pvC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 15:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (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 DC6EE3A0E94 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 15:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id b5so630625pjl.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:44:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=gLYfMhW9Y9dSo3sZpyjOCCFRBuv2pMyk7yVPPn23mII=; b=k93YKKp6+wSmlDa26LC5ShkKoPwFymVzyQjdTQknqxSjTOZzyFFLBpg/On/aIgVEQ1 GJwqlKrfbPXM7rzrqhxOj7s7SzoZa8yiEEljPZbLBgwam96wfGqUhptT2jduP6nK2eFo s5h88Y6KPBzXLCsD/wd93DrWQ3ki+qTDt3i9kwNOstZIRDxHScx0el88Zr6nviqYy2x4 U+ZhsiMwUr8mXhl68RUlEmgQbEuh0ftULRl9Wk79tvSlSRrNFI6Dw3ItTI36k/U0cnkb anixIGI/iAv3M30papckUismULAW+KPWCmJ10EnSSX+iDkizcxXXIBlMEdfasA3PDJIJ Sokw==
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=gLYfMhW9Y9dSo3sZpyjOCCFRBuv2pMyk7yVPPn23mII=; b=o7r5pclIMn5+UBdifmpg/AH35LePMv/dtaw7g+/0rGDR0bHksUP4ry9YL8u+ucubg8 2JngEGhznvtccMuFQQbhZfRN6WDLWC/fwzFgRDtsgTjpVsZXtYw62PZFQvaqMO0wvmOB 4ymYyWz9oibQkyvoAtgYFdy2Lq/ZlqpVzjlXOit10U7H6TLQl1ToFgCu6WDL7QdPPwBj QT5/DCbYI3Sr3vwHoKthrZpaEKlixhm9hp3V82DIv2lwl7RWpfLaqHkuhAgpvIpAepCY AQXdYj1CcB8G63GLt6kZ4byWNVR6XC3LMMwWJ10rSHjEFrSJ0d/8XpiI+ISp1+Px5Nx8 q0Eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533disjFf+8AAHqsY6W8JPbGBsZ4Zv3jIVj2375tN1koJOXu+nB3 K9TA3/DlIje3USqhwTriteIPCa4bXAw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxeCKAkaKLzoEO+mtcg3M+U+gB0Y1oGD75Wv/WtjI8xxOwTViLpnTIr85x3FI/PBWCQW2uTxA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d18c:: with SMTP id fu12mr1433399pjb.153.1609890254058; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.62.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s21sm278989pga.12.2021.01.05.15.44.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:44:13 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
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> <974f9dcd-33ec-9d11-7857-3a473f994a2c@mtcc.com> <72d6bc7d-6862-8184-9f16-e1cc14120239@gmail.com> <f9244f50-8748-a395-a412-ca82bfe6bbea@mtcc.com> <4f2250f2-cc1c-5c3e-3d64-fa0e8b4ad086@gmail.com> <fcd84963-48dd-1fd0-a754-769f8cd7b58c@mtcc.com> <cba89cdb-40c6-48ff-45a0-287117a90385@gmail.com> <215493fa-a033-e5b0-ce8d-4a409ae93684@mtcc.com> <fa04ac5d-3a9f-5546-c77b-e6ddb5c1b1d4@gmail.com> <b3d77e5a-8024-218f-cd3c-6286f9ecd7dc@mtcc.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a7e6944a-363c-9d40-9cd9-1fe640ea6cfb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:44:12 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b3d77e5a-8024-218f-cd3c-6286f9ecd7dc@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kMEBqp0fxLsTjSQQMrdbxPZl6P0>
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, 05 Jan 2021 23:44:16 -0000

On 1/5/2021 2:57 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Oh?  A trust indicator to a user, flagging a domain name, isn't 
>> pretty much the same?  Please explain.
>>
> Pretty much != same.
>
A trust indicator, to a user, flagging a domain name. Essentially the 
same user-oriented mechanism. Web vs. email.  Why and how does that make 
a difference?

The extensive experience with the web EV experiment has been that it 
does NOT make a difference.  Since you seem to dismiss this web 
experience, please explain why it is not relevant to the current topic.


> The study was directly about email. If you read it, the authors were 
> also skeptical about the efficacy.
>
Exactly.  Thank you for noting that.  But, then, it raises the question 
of why you cited it as demonstrating meaningful efficacy for signalling 
DMARC results to end users?


d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org