Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 6058B12003F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:04:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 5MbG46fZEzHR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578BC120018 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id g23so1183451vsr.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:04:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/3z8PLGnNNd0yWI2Urpkti8TJYQ7bKf8xc9dgLrOBVo=; b=GdF5SwV1ZkYDJjjsZ7vW6WXuwz5EsrpVIecIe5dUUWXRvkG9yV0UXcb4RirdI3P7hT BHX7rOXRE+JOomoLMmy9NcrnVFIbTAWOtBexOuYOdUHO3IbppElGwFEr7XarEB6lOi8a E2kNrbhVJK8ZfcjkQjyX1vEcUFIqjGKFktyw6mV9co8oAgPJ22s2wRWdI5Gto/rm3vqx +1SR8oR8RbbgShuIG9iGgPOYqoPqhWM3YPKYbak8eq3LdkAsejU9SQWTzi3akmy7Mg2v AkfiTlE2flMJ+q2pGxym7Xwg/a3w/JCCjlYomZDruQjCTTNFz6DAlTVFk1ChDnFLvM+r XfDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/3z8PLGnNNd0yWI2Urpkti8TJYQ7bKf8xc9dgLrOBVo=; b=B+ZgHB/Kp2YC+EqbOu/BeQTUslTkgroTkHv15eCjza3qz1a9iUivHz/NpNT07otwf8 JBtf70Qn684hcxftOR/lsnWT7+f4ujIh852PQLpzBXr6ypo/89/crSLM/zj2ctLxPv/V nDazkBHVsWRjOoXXYFRNwODLeC48UzE8m7YeEwXkS7KXhtHCzcU1rW3/eXY/8CXBZlcW Noxhw/MvhEFo4nSswvCt5sCoHNP13Peqs+sEktNw/4Jl1/wYXKS/e1wU9C5uNgDxFaft s0mOnP+/7LwCiUxmGy5gGXYTzSr+GgXJ6ZmuKQngAeZGNhxRR4XS8WJpWCjefn4IwjE6 94nQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUHQuMJYikpK41nisEeuBh52ZdUzpGIWWnq3bgdCFtkRcw6g1Sz kumE89F63nieKpjINW6Yl5D2vSJFiWbgKij5Ayiy
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx4Qi8F65S3V1sEaIZGvcWBVKsa3xrn2fN0mYhipis3SLHsE1vFqvsaqT11KD3noSdJK3dsfsNAv1TPivHB4tQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f852:: with SMTP id b18mr3656180vsp.131.1575507852677; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:04:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwacbAT04tckpPcRcnOt=1QByOBeJ7uDf6rNK6NRwtxZYg@mail.gmail.com> <ffa2bf72-3024-237b-86ae-9cc04babeec6@gmail.com> <74a0ea49-7a46-4eb6-c297-cd703f63bd1b@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbp2hNrgF_xxhKRRODQ6HP=U5_K-r3Wtm1wJZOZcKup3g@mail.gmail.com> <9DE9E7DC-FE60-4952-8595-B2D087A6B780@kitterman.com> <CADyWQ+GSP0K=Ci22ouE6AvdqCDGgUAg3jZHBOg3EwCmw=QG84A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1obn55Y2=CuEYRYCEO3TYYNhYTsdkesQ67O61jRyfO=wA@mail.gmail.com> <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net> <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com> <df19dd96-b346-795e-2ffa-92aeffe8105d@tana.it> <CABuGu1qy1Zx7tGzuZvsW0LwNY+se7jcmfAGYNQF+aO5Sodg+pA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qy1Zx7tGzuZvsW0LwNY+se7jcmfAGYNQF+aO5Sodg+pA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:04:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6v=U_0nbz3bvjU0xuWCp7BOcZ7K1ha0qpsvP1C1cLYROA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7094e0598ea81fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BnoGmbyFYn4gtbOG3u-Xo1idpM4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 01:04:16 -0000

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:39 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise.
>>
>> Kurt also talked about reporting some findings.  I'm embarrassed, I have
>> no
>> idea what I, as a receiver, should report.  What data should I, and other
>> receivers collect?
>>
>
> I was thinking of something along the line of what was assembled for RFC
> 6686. In this case it would be something like the quantity of messages
> which were assessed against the LPSD record and their disposition compared
> to the number of messages dispositioned at the org level. Something to
> answer Dave's concern about "too much additional work" for not enough
> benefit.
>

Remind me again the the additional work is that might be too much?  Isn't
it just another DNS lookup for the org domain -1... of which there are
maybe a couple thousand and easily cacheable?

This seems way less than say the additional work for ARC.

Brandon