Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains
Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 23:43 UTC
Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.com>
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 C04B4120259 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vobbi2CaWjCR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8476412022A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 18so5577450oij.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LeirxyNAo/ZEPag35yJPRRRGzKXwgTpReo+L1V6Icg0=; b=BpzNr9EYeTgdSvTuR12w72mgHbgHn53pxLBHjweKaW9Xb5zbzYPWY21DSL46tP+SL3 X+1evI4Dylbl8zHqKR5gM05om2x/AZdlB4/ZqAdQ5V8+8qHJdZLGxDsXoEwqKDNSui9d yl2odgNo+Y4RtIWd9K8arkA2UkWpfnFU3f66Tm9d2Xcs4VRkZfT76WrK0zcNpNzzW0cs qQDo0488qe4Gd5EiAm6ToPtcyxZhJWZWrLkBuX7FTcP/9LoGYU+MgJvrSSQPB8I8fAKA G8pdsCalROahqgvDb66Eqh6hBZUOL/utvaDOKYapBbygmzAbUG1+N8Ly6YTvi9xIHxb8 WGbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LeirxyNAo/ZEPag35yJPRRRGzKXwgTpReo+L1V6Icg0=; b=l7+KWoc3siKJFa1V/uoMXEjIP1+yLOkpneQADrfDs5Xj3Bctf/o0aQN5sP3NzupRSe yri/rFF06QeoXUwykho6ccpAl7VEgcpJ7Fs9as80870lKsPLqna0hZpk5mDZon1c+u2G cubqG0XMPYmPFFjNIzEn/+YnxFVWLsKfR92h07PDYdOh1EFNvYuo8LjyG+92cS5uymkX x9LtNAa+nMGmUgtw9ixMfDi6yxkbbmDTVv7d2f0GOdnY9FqSQ4ERFnYqztfrb6mBovLW Y6Ok9RrmiRdOVZqkBIX7clyGUXRmmaPUyFTZeXEdRvxOJJbyE4BQf4I+LU4sS+nM0rqg OT2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURnul5pfFguXv3aEX01jtI+d6AZ9DVOaKUEjkpaf14RgqoGTjB wybhqnF/z+YXPjrXXsi1VeCmbvwCXc2Yz/aplVfx5OfJPS0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxk0eRycw5FlFYwvK3cWPJ1xbtgF/B00iYYVAnlMzhWL4qHRTMiJlI/NGKrq7Nc1zIv67gacIV/uvhJRH8iyMQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:e005:: with SMTP id x5mr3984409oig.144.1559259824652; Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <LO2P123MB2334F6DE24EFE7FF43DEDB39AD180@LO2P123MB2334.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P123MB2334F6DE24EFE7FF43DEDB39AD180@LO2P123MB2334.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 16:43:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WPsdoJEnhRLCTdyd3xkQ_+5NkVKqekBQGmL2U7233KVRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard C <Richard.C=40ncsc.gov.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f618ac058a237799"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-dipmnOM-1KZTUJaVoaNiY1jyJs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 30 May 2019 23:43:54 -0000
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:06 AM Richard C <Richard.C= 40ncsc.gov.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > What would be the best way to incorporate this requirement? > The simplest possible way to address this use case is just to make sure those existing but currently non-compliant domains just have a bare p=none record. Then they'll never fall back to the gov.uk record. There's no risk to inadvertently breaking mail here. It it remotely realistic for you to offer this guidance? If you're already saying that p=reject is required, how painful is it to advertise that any domain without a DMARC record will get p=reject by default unless it explicitly puts p=none in? Seth
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains Richard C
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Richard C
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Hector Santos