Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Sun, 22 March 2020 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FE43A08FF for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nWqX4B1gLxpw for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B4523A08FE for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a63so6506790vsa.8 for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tdQZZNttqfY5DaooNWxXRzQb7QkFFecT5jsLtga3mqI=; b=E5ZuvRHjd+Xy3QUeM7KeZNMsFa9Y2e0LqS0iZJSozsT2zJV1+E9dqI3GKbe3Vi5XM1 uKZaNBRsGmJBxm1UVD8xsMUtAK31lkCkviEB86BCyHTcHBfsL0ba3ms5ce0RkLzGCZy9 6GRstY1r7r150B4LROBf/aOsRxrgI9IMjegYtNkIdWvQq36gNPIfHyTK37cDxX4oK6H+ vHW9ET3m/c2nbG9BA2yZAZERcIH0ye1dmwIAIzBJ8rLlMbdkqXyDjHkbPDYFH30IFbtM vrx1X3jsY5E+ExlOI5gQEVq0XZ8xeRLJ0lTfaOo/xuZT6lE+KwMRDueK4JV1sXU9Ppq5 5EJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tdQZZNttqfY5DaooNWxXRzQb7QkFFecT5jsLtga3mqI=; b=sizLJjtJo9LPHYd7aGUHv1Xe8Rx6pkUj9kzoTU7erJpyyRFzvLhcrUQ/9zL12aN+fN spX5m+2EeuxisIZiN7BQDsK1LEZTr6FGq4gFaESU2LxdtLn2w5oQXDboYN6FqiiewXhH 33vDL6ezMLMkXDtaRgb+TOTIv2De+kbKJ+rROiLnfZ4qGQlbj/9i5KZhPGSFVzOwqYnO zkuiqpX4O0b82eL3URHsxOGMQIavIcCh6lN68l8mnigkS+Nl6I4bP4oX/2Nc7V3K9OHE pxWVZb5hA7zO0rGJM5pPfrYAkRNwiqNICwoTKwKf41CNvVPyc9b9EWJxff9oamkg9hsS 6qVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2WyiNrI4ZeTMmMsTqrw2KLd8p7spwamsTUeArOQaJ0LFZETXXe 63VJarDpq3kAOQJlFweTCGNs6zf2hyb4ct0gKoRa1yiQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vskc1ucJIBkudPUpIDQXFC5B+A9pMysPT10DTdh?= =?utf-8?q?T6wGjiu8EstWPW6zHGcaLj6lSUv6D65twbUKaW5jpMEsaxk=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c10f:: with SMTP id d15mr11228359vsj.7.1584840686930; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20200319011703.E1A70163EB3F@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20200319011703.E1A70163EB3F@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:31:14 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b8e7b05a1677ac3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 01:31:30 -0000

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:17 PM John Levine <> wrote:

> >The issue PSD is attempting to address is mail sent as a nonexistent
> >subdomain.  For example, doesn't have a subdomain called
> >, so irrespective of any DMARC policy, I could
> send
> >email as without limitation. ...
> I have less sympathy for that argument.  I do a hard reject of any
> mail with a nonexistent bounce address which I don't think is unusual.
> PSD as I understand it is to address the same issue the organizational
> domain does, but a level up, in a group of organizations that have
> some administrative connection.  The issue is people who publish A and
> MX records without covering DMARC records.  They're not supposed to do
> that but they do, and PSD is one way of figuring out who needs to fix what.

Sorry, yes, my example was faulty.