Re: [Ietf-dkim] Thinking About DKIM and Surveillance

"Mark Delany" <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st> Thu, 03 October 2019 00:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>
X-Original-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9018E120089 for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emu.st
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 SREbG3w30VdA for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from f3.bushwire.net (f3.bushwire.net [203.0.120.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A454120013 for <ietf-dkim@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by f3.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B32603B105; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:22:39 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2019; t=1570062159; bh=IpQGbK/kpsCfeiYMnjM5cwQ8x60=; h=Comments:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IDvmBeiUDPFx9ubZQMoOgyFdSd1GuP2N/DSx7mSKolLaYsP9ZQL/QlSo89hQRIent 44Hy6b4GySgevOC/dckJQo6k/WyiK8YZL48gEn17QdNO6j3pyFWXAEsbotvy4/zbXJ EER01WodeWV//+ydqN42AliD5jxS0ND4lzzGBAL8=GBAL8=
Comments: QMDA 0.3a
Received: (qmail 11602 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Oct 2019 00:22:39 -0000
Date: 3 Oct 2019 00:22:39 +0000
Message-ID: <20191003002239.11601.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
From: "Mark Delany" <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
References: <B0CC594E-7B2A-46D2-BEBD-C4E20FF6D1D6@callas.org> <2093717f-efe5-2a10-fdf8-ad43aa8819e5@bluepopcorn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2093717f-efe5-2a10-fdf8-ad43aa8819e5@bluepopcorn.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/teKPR341HE0BmIg9iDdtffZHI0g>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Thinking About DKIM and Surveillance
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM List <ietf-dkim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 00:22:45 -0000

On 02Oct19, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:

> The type of surveillance we were discussing at the time was the
> potential that the verification of a DKIM signature might give the
> sender information on the location of the recipient (by observing the

That is mostly my recollection also. But as you say:

> I don't doubt that others (particularly Jon) thought more thoroughly
> than I about privacy concerns such as this.

And in any event it appear some now think it's a real issue so whether
it was thought about much in the past and by who probably isn't that
material since it didn't result in any action at the time.

> -Jim (who will read the article soon!)

Ulp! Now you're gonna make us all feel guilty.


Mark.