Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC forensic reports (ruf=) and privacy

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 26 January 2019 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 66E24124D68 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=V+pFI106; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KohZPGvy
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 dT-K1Y_GHhlH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:38:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 E3FB71277BB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 74690 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2019 22:38:12 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=123c0.5c4ce154.k1901; bh=jcxF+otBkbHLLw6suGZfomXF+IapI69DfRafLVfxGUY=; b=V+pFI1066DQG07DBJaXCWfwFL1twEbuEwTCUwMHOiI0lBetaEWJj+EqoNNycHPlfkaXBZz9o0u9uvyMsD0zFCc+iFYkR20G5q/eFYwIE8OrM+tcNilx7o64DYjU9UV2Xf1ckJ7r+FOYgLVE7uKd39+Y/eF9TrOQO0YDzGpZom/IyuKG5w2bi84+ZPKokeTEo6p8Tg57iJbnGQz2tJaMRqNcw9kYVrIlDBGwKuMC/Bp964KtrNgu4NarpIG/iSKll
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=123c0.5c4ce154.k1901; bh=jcxF+otBkbHLLw6suGZfomXF+IapI69DfRafLVfxGUY=; b=KohZPGvyckut2At0DTVSDYTfHVWQUZU97/47GgCP5ojqj24UxAKgn+jInqf77zIpPclsDXniPrQ6l614JV+TQcgFGrYoeNsC2vymQbVGBDuO3SgepCcTDuSZM7EP800M7hU3Phbg1MhI2mtLI2cMLtXaLRHnbOKAHM2vMc50/f7XjIrmWJ3BJM4ezUmmgVDRFG6iPR+VJ/Kwh79mW1tO9PSs8azyMG9lQWdtvOWoXGOlU+WQsKUWYV0xksPp1tK/
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 26 Jan 2019 22:38:11 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 51EAC200D3CEF9; Sat, 26 Jan 2019 17:38:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: 26 Jan 2019 17:38:12 -0500
Message-Id: <20190126223812.51EAC200D3CEF9@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <ad02c03115cebe042ba0c6f815b5e98cec0398ae.camel@aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/t3IZE-bTse-tF4urF6lxaR-jsmM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC forensic reports (ruf=) and privacy
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: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:38:17 -0000

In article <ad02c03115cebe042ba0c6f815b5e98cec0398ae.camel@aegee.org> you write:
>reiterating over the arguments against sending reports to the ruf= …dmarc address, the first provided reason was, that
>such report will not match the expectations of the users.

I'm pretty sure that the people you think you are arguing with are not
on this mailing list.

R's,
John