[dmarc-ietf] Implementing psddmarc

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 24 September 2019 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 BBC9C12008D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Hx80eVH--6Z for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493A5120072 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1569334569; bh=buDv11Ey+HWV2yX6hL1V+yuSvGdph34uTnlP0n0OJn0=; l=1831; h=To:From:Date; b=ApN8nP0mil/QSieP1OQ3Ut0CUVN2mvy+DFmxYE+7fqxBjRji5tpNq2wQCjtaibuBA ia8doWFDMKYUIamhCNcC9hSsgePI8EyS4cZQwHT4RaUB1WI9e25F/m3r4gxwTfOOx6 ScnxC9MX/qqN3SayUY4dJ7L3+XR/91ZWPkzbWljUd1yPs+5wWdj6/aEuN4kmZ
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC079.000000005D8A2528.000002AE; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:16:08 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <4103172c-108a-e146-b660-d7a72e24a42b@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:16:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_north-686-1569334568-0001-2"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/7cJIwC2FSfTUBwL6W0-MEilkw9Y>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Implementing psddmarc
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:16:13 -0000

Hi all,
I added psddmarc to the latest zdkimfilter.

After some thought, I chose to use and distribute a file like the one attached.  Two reasons for doing so are as follows:

1. Avoid to invent yet another file format, specifying header line, initial dot, comments, and the like.

2. Reuse the library calls already available for parsing and searching the PSL.

On the second call, the software passes the organizational domain resulting from the first call, and thus retrieves the "super organizational" domain, if any.  The file only contains the domain from psddmarc.org registry which actually sports a DMARC record.  While the experiment is ongoing, the file will have to be updated.

It would be convenient, if more implementations will find the above reasons convincing, if such a list would be maintained and distributed by psddmarc.org along with (or instead of) the csv format.  After all, since this list extends the PSL, keeping the same format may make some sense.