Hello, how does the unrealistic expectation of message sender and recipient, that a “deleted” message is immediately irreversibly removed from all backups, differ from the expectation that an “erased” message does not exist in a forensic subsystem?
Do Terms of Use, that clarify the sending of forensic reports (and backup policies) close the expectation/reality gap? Regards Дилян On Sat, 2019-01-26 at 16:26 +0300, Vladimir Dubrovin wrote: > Message sender can expect message content is only stored in sender's and > recipient's mailboxes after delivery. If deleted by both sender and > recipient, this message is not longer exists and it's content can not be > recovered. > > In this scenario, (partial) message content can be stored in DMARC > forensic subsystem unknowingly to user, it may violate user's privacy > expectations and/or rights, depending on local legislation. > > > > 26.01.2019 14:37, Дилян Палаузов пишет: > > Hello, > > > > for a smooth working DMARC DKIM signers and verifiers must be > > interoperatable. When a server DKIM-signs a message and > > sends it to another server without intermediates, the latter shall be able > > verify the signature. Imagine, the DKIM > > validation fails and the ruf= dmarc report email address points to the > > sending server. > > > > What are the privacy concerns in this simple scenario that speak against > > sending a DMARC/DKIM report to sending server, > > telling that the DKIM validation fails? > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-9 mentions some privacy > > thoughts, but these are not applicable when the > > sending server obviously has already the reported message and no > > intermediates are involved, that could expose > > additional information. > > > > Regards > > Дилян > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list > > dmarc@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
