IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Final, I hope, tweaks to the tree walk

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 29 June 2022 10:15 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 4055AC15C7C2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.974
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.974 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_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=u+/p9Zni; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=C5t630jO
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 0QbF5_wBQeMW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:15:17 -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 1AF31C15C7CB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1656497712; bh=yq/w9sKu7yfub9oV1O9WJuq5u+r44QsEpQkYbu+ZhaU=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=u+/p9Zni2abMzatil+55gkcWclYz78Ud5OV+ExHDpalWBEsLBXRqhqY3/xizsmoaL 3HVr6PlWi1J6B9NxkW1DQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1656497712; bh=yq/w9sKu7yfub9oV1O9WJuq5u+r44QsEpQkYbu+ZhaU=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=C5t630jO5VAC6y2ED4wV5QYLh1Ojg4o/iF35GDLhx7kcsUX28Y2oPfAqHpuyYx1NQ jyg9biVFKBIft5ZwJuriF037MwDYIMGT9++wKLEZ7CKpFWzN80utH57UgMZ6HAT2Yw QvVbuTUTNkNxu3x+tBbeSUD/3YOXX9ybPHcEIw+IQ53sOopnRAXvAVSvFY7hX
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 00000000005DC033.0000000062BC2630.000077EA; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:15:12 +0200
Message-ID: <0813aeaf-fa95-d9a1-04f5-d1e5dbed7b78@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:15:12 +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 R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220626154211.6893F4452D0F@ary.qy> <2bc4e123-8711-7538-599e-727d8ea9caff@tana.it> <bedf51e9-6fe6-d52b-1083-bac67d8906ea@taugh.com> <be56e041-d588-c8e7-bd37-bf2858773b75@tana.it> <6c2a2820-5b60-636c-bf04-da99ee0a85b0@taugh.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <6c2a2820-5b60-636c-bf04-da99ee0a85b0@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2sTbQ0IrOA5HUvpnEsFHXHZrQS4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Final, I hope, tweaks to 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: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:15:30 -0000

On Wed 29/Jun/2022 00:23:08 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
>> What can one find continuing the walk after psd=y?
> 
> I have looked at every domain in the PSL that publishes a DMARC record and 
> other than the three that are in Scott's PSD list, what I found was totally 
> random.  Some looked reasonable, some looked broken.  In practice I think the 
> details are unlikely to matter because if they send mail at all, the SPF and 
> DKIM identities are going to be the same as the From so they'll be aligned no 
> matter what rule we use.


Indeed, in realistic cases walking the tree beyond psd=y results in just a 
useless query.  I have shown an unrealistic case where not stopping at psd=y 
results in a wrong determination.

Would you please show an example, realistic or not, where not stopping for 
psd=y in step 2 leads to a useful result?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email