Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 14 December 2018 15:22 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 D4AB512896A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_PH_BODY_META_ALL=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 8l8TwwGrtISF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79262124BF6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=gamma; t=1544800938; bh=B46yUHycGYgjQPB6/nMc2bw9MOMiG5uX3lc2XQv9yKs=; l=1018; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AVsU4Ss35AVrI7ZlXJn92+a5xS2Ne/0DhGhtRTpIM33PDau2E7Ns7uTlIDXlb6ClU BdmGhTL+Z3nBSPiPVmO7KzssN4sLiNLStaViB9PexKWanTR518YanXYFwUZ9r5vBRK Wa8IV5iZ2pdpZWJX5sc6+F/TIJfL/8UVOA+o0MMXEe/x+nhd3X0CcJVqnJqdH
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:22:17 +0100 id 00000000005DC082.000000005C13CAA9.0000179D
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <b3ab712a-74b3-d580-65bc-a97bf8c4652d@gmail.com> <B64DD715-DFC4-42E1-87FC-15A5ED0B83F9@kitterman.com> <4e253157-3397-b901-4c1d-132c709b996e@gmail.com> <2657505.cCtalkmY2s@kitterma-e6430> <2981238b-1e41-294c-0c04-0b8183c7234e@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <3b6a99a6-b45c-303f-aa4d-b2588b930ab0@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:22:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2981238b-1e41-294c-0c04-0b8183c7234e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3WrNugM8xS-6CnxioxK-RyT22dE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:22:22 -0000

On Thu 13/Dec/2018 17:08:46 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:

> Let me suggest a much easier hack, which differs in utility mostly by being
> post hoc rather than the current draft's pre-hoc mechanism:
> 
>      Require the registry to publish another DNS record, in its _dmarc node,
> which a) asserts either than DMARC is required or that the subtree is part of a
> single organization, and b) contain a URL to the documentation for this.
> 
> A query for the DMARC record of the registry will also deliver this information
> record.  (This might be the first case in which the problem of getting 'other'
> TXT records is actually a feature and not a problem...)
> 
> That makes the information public, while avoiding the considerable overhead and
> problems of a new registry -- nevermind one that needs real-time querying.


+1.  The documentation is going to be consumed by MTA admins who decide whether
to honor the rua= request or not.  A community reviewed distributed registry.


Best
Ale
--