IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 31 December 2020 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 7DAD23A0DF7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 09:26:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 1lZKvAZUsJWv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 09:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D49C93A0DF6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 09:26:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1609435586; bh=/yrQTswyhPdKfgn6TYLyB68V5p26cnD17pOgyLhMaIU=; l=928; h=From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C4U0fZYg3xEP0qkF75noonFYKs4eAFAdyYJb7aJfTzsCip40434LUO0sIlsTIEayE HttKMTLW7ZZnWZrl9h+uXiZp98wHJn1YLuaL9M97w79Vs4zRtVJf1owrIT3SccmUGT 5sVLnEffiI+fC7YmRMdyLGkyIJH9b0/tHW3u1c9WV7NMgtMWUlbcPvGCh1wTj
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0BB.000000005FEE09C1.000024EE; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 18:26:25 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
References: <20201218023900.E73B82ACBB2B@ary.qy> <a323077-9b64-555b-3561-62cdc93819fd@taugh.com> <a8281e16-9417-5189-df73-79ea0a865fbd@tana.it> <c713b9ae-a364-1ae0-e79-55f61624aa3d@taugh.com> <3034face-b6fc-0ce2-fa1b-f59210bd6f5b@tana.it> <46339b38-3b24-bcb7-5e73-8a97038ed69@taugh.com> <3997c81d-3b30-0823-a752-fb1d60a44593@tana.it> <74a5c37-19a6-6f6f-a51d-6e5cca5b29e8@taugh.com> <CAJ4XoYdXWTgADpdL1eJuYGnpSY038vj-FW_x1f2rEp1JL0r2oA@mail.gmail.com> <01RTICXKLL3E0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <c5f7413e-52c1-6710-16e5-63f59d2c24b9@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwYDeV9CmFg9qCCGPse00JV30WRiSC4orC-EitK=hiahgA@mail.gmail.com> <a79dd75-4d73-d1dc-d6b1-272de866b950@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwZXu3FxH7QGBS7PGbeDwfDTGmC=rbPEQidVV4eDJNHLUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYeK2cJb+easc=mqCi4ap1932LmbDdfxM1dFZKrdo2a2mw@mail.gmail.com> <acfe3d9e-97eb-50ee-26a2-568fdd8359dd@taugh.com> <CADyWQ+GJ62jt=dL9Gzuw_O7USNbS=86BqAzu8Rdv9sCb5OpCdw@mail.gmail.com> <d4a00be5-bd61-0c05-3431-8d56b39a3550@tana.it>
Message-ID: <f968459f-4778-640d-1e58-34b09fbec417@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 18:26:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d4a00be5-bd61-0c05-3431-8d56b39a3550@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oQOvKlaCLO1EouhYYt6nmZJCzDE>
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 17:26:30 -0000

On Thu 24/Dec/2020 10:35:10 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 24/Dec/2020 03:39:03 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
>> I Believe I agree with the current version, but can someone post what we 
>> think is the final text?
> 
> 
> I posted it here:
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting
> 
> I don't think the text is final, though.  Besides minor tweaks in the first 
> paragraphs of Section 3, the whole discussion about external destinations has 
> to be stroked and replaced with a reference to aggregate reporting.


I removed duplicated text and adjusted references.  Diffs available here:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-00&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting.txt


If the WG agrees, I'd post that as -01 and close ticket #55.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email