Laura Atkins wrote on 2021-05-08 13:59: >> What happens to the existing "envelope_to"? > > The proposal objected to was adding a new piece of information to pass > along information that would allow reconstruction of a forwarding pathway. > > Case 1: Identify mail flows along forwarders.
This was not meant as a proposal. It is an explanation of what is possible with the envelope_to that exists in the spec already: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#page-69> > The current system does not allow for reconstruction of the forwarding > pathway. I agree in that envelope_to makes it easier for reconstruction of the pathway, but disagree otherwise. DMARC reporting in principle allows for reconstruction of the pathway, as noted in the privacy considerations: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02#section-6.1> Other proposals in the current I-Ds contribute to this privacy threat and may be worth a separate discussion: - #57 requires reporting of selectors, which can be exploited for tracking. - #62 makes reporting mandatory, which leaves the mail receiver with no means to mitigate the privacy threat. Regards, Matt _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
