Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification

Alessandro Vesely <> Fri, 14 December 2018 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AB512896A for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8l8TwwGrtISF for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79262124BF6 for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:22:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:22:17 +0100 id 00000000005DC082.000000005C13CAA9.0000179D
References: <> <> <> <2657505.cCtalkmY2s@kitterma-e6430> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification
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: 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.