[dmarc-ietf] dmarc Digest, Vol 76, Issue 19

gd@mex.trade Wed, 17 July 2019 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gd@mex.trade>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38F01201C6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 03:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8kBSm0Pl587 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 03:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nova5.metanet.ch (nova5.metanet.ch []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7353120183 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 03:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.mex.trade (localhost []) by nova5.metanet.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AA5344E1163 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: nova.metanet.ch; spf=pass (sender IP is smtp.mailfrom=gd@mex.trade smtp.helo=webmail.mex.trade
Received-SPF: pass (nova.metanet.ch: connection is authenticated)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:22:35 +0200
From: gd@mex.trade
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.600.1563342902.9467.dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.600.1563342902.9467.dmarc@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <951345c1d0b5c8b664f2ba70c9b06de7@mex.trade>
X-Sender: gd@mex.trade
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4cjXi2eY1RvlcPi_PJAUvbIaIDw>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc Digest, Vol 76, Issue 19
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:22:41 -0000

Dear all,

Congrats for all the great work done so far.

Regarding the topics below,

1. What further context is needed in the introduction?
2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement 
are needed
3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs

1) No further info ...
2) indeed there should be a TEXT but only very general and only 
informative  more than anything else.
3) I vote to make it NP tag  as mandatory, or fall back on SP either way 
should be very explicit, to enforce the purpose.

Best Regards
Gustavo Damy