Re: [dmarc-ietf] Implementing psddmarc

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
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 EA6B6120026 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=AnKDqb6J; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=omrRFpvQ
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 3p4AEi80x_hP for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CAB5120018 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB1CF805B3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1569446584; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=QB30GIbRv+HsUMVQ/I6KuAdjuxxbAqbUnV129DW9DlI=; b=AnKDqb6JBTGueWf8Z98dyfU1wGyUbyyFgdwLsQLODsX5td7hliQ7GpSM A5/FgLq78vDIsmalcNLYQPkebeajCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1569446584; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=QB30GIbRv+HsUMVQ/I6KuAdjuxxbAqbUnV129DW9DlI=; b=omrRFpvQaGabOedPASlFZCP+j+WFZmPxCpQYmJggWLYMcTVRy/AeT1ho rO/rR3NCSNARfJCHX4cldze96lGan4Lzvm6TrOrawgp+lHH8x8Trj4kg6O 0wHdhOU1DC1Tdav4EurOqupoV5+IXp0fZX5e55riglO9XEy7U0zzMUHPN1 nf1UMd/8C6JwUF4bR89c8SGmqSY5T6t3WXTQ/6YpfK2FQ/bTZJ3ylnsGQw NLcOoEqdVrQrcaixq8j5a/ldDTHh+xMFQEFr7wPwpH6uUS5gK7YUdQ76vx oM9W/O9yEbF18sZmQcd8fc0kCTsOPeShV5RHh48FNMYrvrKBCEwQfA==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8AB7F8035E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:23:04 -0400
Message-ID: <9571084.N2IzJBRSXg@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <4103172c-108a-e146-b660-d7a72e24a42b@tana.it>
References: <4103172c-108a-e146-b660-d7a72e24a42b@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9JkuJMPDMXtKPzmLJ5IE--CmNUE>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:23:08 -0000

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:16:08 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 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.

I think we should include this in the options for the experiment about how to 
keep track of which PSDs are doing PSD DMARC.

Can you provide what you'd like me to add about your implementation for 
Appendix C?

Scott K