Re: [Bimi] BIMI/DMARC & PSL vs Tree-walk

I agree with John about BIMI being more tied to DMARC than PSL, and it
seems wisest at this point to focus BIMI on such self-managed resources as
opposed to using the PSL for it.

The whole concept of BIMI is fascinating, as an aside.

On Sat, May 13, 2023, 10:58 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> It appears that Ken O\'Driscoll <ken@kenodriscoll.com> said:
> >The DMARC WG moved away from using the PSL for very valid reasons that
> >probably don't need to be rehashed here. Those reasons are equally valid
> >for BIMI. I think that BIMI should follow suit and use whatever mechanism
> >DMARC uses to determine the organisational domain.
>
> It seems hopelessly confusing to do anything else.
>
> >Also, why do you think the current spec (dmarcbis-27) would give a
> >different answer for the organisational domain than a PSL query?
>
> We spent an absurd amount of time arguing about the tree walk, due
> to a few people who obsessed about the handful of domains in the PSL.
>
> In the vast majority of cases, the tree walk and the PSL give the same
> result. We found a few cases where they didn't -- a domain that sends
> mail but doesn't have a DMARC record, an org domain with a DMARC
> record, and another domain between those two with a DMARC record with
> a different policy. When we looked at them it was not at all clear
> which result the domains expected.
>
> How about telling people that if they want to use BIMI, it would be
> a really good idea to publish DMARC records for the domains they use
> to send mail?  Then the problem goes away.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> --
> bimi mailing list
> bimi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi
>