Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Alessandro Vesely <> Wed, 04 December 2019 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C86120131 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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] 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 iQQbZBKrxYVz for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE821201E4 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1575455918; bh=yPsy3x6MCHMiltFnQn3rZMsRdX9Y55PI8tr/iQZEKtw=; l=852; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CykHOfLcL5qrWSPdtLm3xwUtNi9ySWLrv3K5Ci4g1kgXy/LAWTFACbouzsVFQoe8R COF3FGBnWDmJ/+wrb/wODOsOStOSXb/qBeDpq7G5gZ9uI3hZHgU3Hq45ZRuKSHcr05 JGLrvmhjVwrsFfUSl5CpZKzgYCeanfXVSdHWa3XYzmf3kSsuXDhLuPYd1nD/d
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC073.000000005DE78CAE.000010B2; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 11:38:38 +0100
References: <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912031621140.9180@ary.qy> <2256126.EK92VDTyOC@l5580>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:38:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2256126.EK92VDTyOC@l5580>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:38:41 -0000

On Wed 04/Dec/2019 08:13:48 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I'd prefer to see the new dns ptype separated from the dnswl discussion.  I 
> can see broad utility in the dns ptype (for example, if you want to indicate 
> that a domain is testing DKIM, I think we need dns because that's where you 
> find the information - it's not an attribute of the signature).

Ptypes are already shared.  Define once, use freely.  (Except that each method
has to define which properties it uses, and hence which ptypes.)

IMHO, a simplification step, whenever someone is going to address rfc8601bis,
would be to factor the results as well.  For example, every method carefully
specifies pass, fail, temperror and permerror to have the same, agreed
semantics.  The IANA page nicely allows to sort the table by code, a bemusing