IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Bridging the gap

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 16 June 2022 15:57 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 4B874C14F727 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.006 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=-1.876, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=DgctgfDl; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=BONOhHsm
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 6QS7qQ0TTv9y for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:57:15 -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 9FC4DC14F72F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1655395028; bh=i7QZ5Qu4mZzr/qiuOw7GQrdoYjiXM3O7v7pupNFOByg=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DgctgfDlvyYXSNhI6qeuPhHYj7EqAbEZKg6yv5nfncYA4uhZ+yza4W+oNTI97zL6n ZgeHVfiQwDdeELIdKBoCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1655395028; bh=i7QZ5Qu4mZzr/qiuOw7GQrdoYjiXM3O7v7pupNFOByg=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BONOhHsmlEHwEwOUMT3fJnBQP7Ugb7/bnf0Xn1fbT4ALsiL421TyVCxcgMBZ/3pda u4TTZdZ3pnr7M/yCVUxneE0BhwB0awzfpM7dcDa2moiBlz2leNKtjof/rFHuvNJGf+ A4I0YvWjpmhTgcNh1VZ7GYSJqIa0rqmbHwUZRa6H+y/v5K3LKZVyqcgZDUGVf
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC083.0000000062AB52D4.00002FD7; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:57:08 +0200
Message-ID: <edde1042-3ac8-6538-816a-411800c709ff@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:57:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220615174742.BBCE443B1333@ary.local>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <20220615174742.BBCE443B1333@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0UK_VKnQUyu_0bQwGmPYy5-PSL4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Bridging the gap
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:57:21 -0000

On Wed 15/Jun/2022 19:47:42 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>>I think we found the few critical domains which need a flag.
> 
> We may have found some domains that need a psd flag, but it's silly to
> assert we have found all or even most of them.
> 
> The PSL has 9300 entries and there are surely far more places in the DNS
> than that where you want sibling domains to be separate.


Is there someone who is going to contact, on behalf of the WG, the domains that 
were found in order to have their owners publish psd= flags before the RFC is 
published?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email