IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 15 July 2022 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBCBC188732 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 03:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.128
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=dM070/3+; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=C//+a+LQ
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1aWMGeFc7xq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 03:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B1C0C157901 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 03:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1657880988; bh=TC6xo9kaXgF0UURybXxTieFfhyz2mlnloIfg0PXLiug=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=dM070/3+2jq2FY1deHGqFkiqyGVy+2fX49qZ9s3pvBcKQODJ+4bDlXmxpyLh/Wvj4 F7tMq+9U/KdEeU9goRqDA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1657880988; bh=TC6xo9kaXgF0UURybXxTieFfhyz2mlnloIfg0PXLiug=; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=C//+a+LQQYh7mH4IAWQ3b4ryMQ6C99ncln5EA3ngFcb+TKkq9kJueOyZv/eJQUfxn D45C8dAXNFTBkT7bQ5OjRoOSh9XNSmhNusp8mo2Si6oQnyZsGk2syJ20CvSV95nJZp wdKle3B1FkMQp8IoTfzpuUzgzu78BN3bRv8NR3KguQqX255h0xFsLNt6AAEJw
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (host-87-4-196-130.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.4.196.130]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC083.0000000062D1419C.0000758A; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:29:47 +0200
Message-ID: <66093339-4dae-4479-39e2-283ce7f8f21f@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:29:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220710010547.DB3B04532F40@ary.qy> <d8716435-8a52-dac4-ede2-6c27fced7f0f@tana.it> <84DDA91C-26E2-4803-8C6C-0369ED67298F@kitterman.com> <c4a7fd03-eae8-497f-3133-73523a9c1ca2@tana.it> <5197ba5f-9de4-d838-1579-eae67683e2d4@taugh.com> <650cadee-db8f-a54a-4d14-082c2d0bed02@tana.it> <0f3a343b-e7ea-7509-ceab-e5670aac8616@taugh.com> <CAH48ZfxHgxZwu3zLh99pc1JS4s==9bxU-0nS78O=7UAnZ=DtUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8nkpGo30b9-ZkRc_wokymJ2ry_hsMgzaB2m4EH-WWG_zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfzoVocPRKeVTqf6AE6Z48AWKFObm7X5oDa1ic1sQ5V1zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZFO_KK3+RUdzMLyjW0uOnzi4mXcVww1Mqx8tmhe-x2hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48ZfwTaf75HiJS2_VJKez8s3FqMh-K_6eD2eqaJatXWwcKww@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbxoijfdfxpS5-LRPifxg+4e_ndBGQhne5s5of0zxBbMQ@mail.gmail.com> <D3807517-98C3-4F20-A594-F3109BCB831A@kitterman.com> <f5e3f92b-f95e-a3a5-c74d-bd0957bec61a@tana.it> <4293C636-9656-4122-80D6-5E2DE4D790B4@kitterman.com> <CAL0qLwZN8VfB2SLTindAO4P0_h47wphh2OZy8p8U3xM7-ZNGWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZN8VfB2SLTindAO4P0_h47wphh2OZy8p8U3xM7-ZNGWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-OP95GSccOhJ8ZPf5n27fugln_I>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:30:12 -0000

On Thu 14/Jul/2022 17:12:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 6:13 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> I think a choice within DMARCbis is a bad idea.  Effectively the choice 
>>>> exists.  Evaluators will have the choice to stay with an RFC 7489 design or 
>>>> to upgrade to DMARCbis.
>>>
>>> The incentive to upgrade is not clear.  DMARC filters can run based on an 
>>> obsolete version of the PSL with no inconvenience, for a different flavor 
>>> of "upgrade".  Indeed, according to John's figures, we could have done 
>>> without any psd= tag.
>>
>> Using obsolete data is a bug, not a feature.
> 
> Or using data that is accidentally correct most of the time, where 
> alternatives are available.  Either way, +1.


+1 from me too.  Note, though, that the (current) DNS is accidentally 
correct most of the time, as far as our Tree Walk is concerned.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email