John is not alone, I too can recognize single posts. However, I'd argue that
in such cases there is no privacy violation. You violate privacy when you
collect personal data of (several) people *different from yourself*.
Best
Ale
On Tue 25/Apr/2023 18:36:34 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
My suggestion is delete all of it. It's accurate for some cases, not for
others. If you want to keep any of it, I think it needs to be properly
caveated. I expect that would be a Sisyphean task that's not worth the effort.
Scott K
On April 25, 2023 2:54:46 PM UTC, "Brotman, Alex"
<Alex_Brotman=40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
As explained in 6.1, that's not actually true if the domains are small enuogh.
In some of my tiny domains I can often recognize individual messages I've
sent. I'd just delete these sentences.
I'd argue that you're in a (mostly) unique situation where you're the sender
and the report reviewer. That being said, would you prefer I remove all of
6.3? Does the remaining sentence have enough value to keep? Or sweep it up to
6.1?
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:18 PM
To: Brotman, Alex <alex_brot...@comcast.com>; dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-
reporting-09.txt
> I removed the small section that faced objections.
>
> I updated the ridtxt definition and discovered that mmark was making a
mess of those asterisks. When there are more than one/some on a single
line, it believes you would like some subset to be defined as "<em>" things.
Looks pretty good. Minor points:
The first paragraph in 2.6 says:
Where the URI specified in a "rua" tag does not specify otherwise, a
Mail Receiver generating a feedback report SHOULD employ a secure
transport mechanism.
Since the only mechanism is mail and nobody's going to S/MIME encrypt their
reports, I suggest just deleting it.
6.3:
Mail Receivers should have no concerns in sending reports as they do
not contain personal information. ...
Domain Owners should have no concerns in receiving reports as they do
not contain personal information.
As explained in 6.1, that's not actually true if the domains are small enuogh.
In some of my tiny domains I can often recognize individual messages I've
sent. I'd just delete these sentences.
R's,
John
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
>> internet-dra...@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 7:39 PM
>> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
>> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-09.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>> This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message
>> Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) WG of the IETF.
>>
>> Title : DMARC Aggregate Reporting
>> Author : Alex Brotman
>> Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-09.txt
>> Pages : 28
>> Date : 2023-04-24
>>
>> Abstract:
>> DMARC allows for domain holders to request aggregate reports from
>> receivers. This report is an XML document, and contains extensible
>> elements that allow for other types of data to be specified later.
>> The aggregate reports can be submitted to the domain holder's
>> specified destination as supported by the receiver.
>>
>> This document (along with others) obsoletes RFC7489.
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ie
>> tf-dmarc-
>> aggregate-
>>
reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!HBzOZHijNkg7AyDQnUKsIyEGZaJcT2dIFMGNVy
qsr7
>> nLWuCbVwCDo_mqKdBpLG2eSmAWmSaOYcZxRLwpzMl1GqF46TKSvg$
>>
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iet
>> f-dmarc-
>> aggregate-reporting-
>>
09.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!HBzOZHijNkg7AyDQnUKsIyEGZaJcT2dIFMGNVyqsr
7nL
>> WuCbVwCDo_mqKdBpLG2eSmAWmSaOYcZxRLwpzMl1GqEqNRr1SA$
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2
>> =draft-
>> ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-
>>
09__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!HBzOZHijNkg7AyDQnUKsIyEGZaJcT2dIFMGNVyqsr7nLW
uC
>> bVwCDo_mqKdBpLG2eSmAWmSaOYcZxRLwpzMl1GqFdWqTU2g$
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at
>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
__;!
>>
!CQl3mcHX2A!HBzOZHijNkg7AyDQnUKsIyEGZaJcT2dIFMGNVyqsr7nLWuCbV
wCD
>> o_mqKdBpLG2eSmAWmSaOYcZxRLwpzMl1GqEDBiM7_A$
>
>
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. <a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jl.ly__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Fpku2qYC
TuZKAA4K08a9mXXHN3ECaWvI28GCiy40HeEi8kyMh5bKjQWeT7UFbqsfeN5N
v88e0Nj1WqU$">https://jl.ly</a>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
