Re: [dmarc-ietf] Org domaines, not really Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 080AC1200F5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:33:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=maNPVxyP; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=UfO1h12h
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 p8WaN3U1CFRa for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6299C120045 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13501 invoked by uid 100); 5 Feb 2020 02:33:43 -0000
Date: 5 Feb 2020 02:33:43 -0000
Message-ID: <r1d9i7$6bo$4@gal.iecc.com>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=34b5.5e3a2987.k2002; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=StzDHDZ5CYEgiSEHy2c/ODkvCf8FNpYaR3SKl57bmwM=; b=maNPVxyPEvBrZQDEg2whP2dn/3D2lCVd0wx7n+XYZQKRdEDIPeVhwWzb+J0GtUWJZL7argqfXx78yUViqzxIjdCxEsPmsTtJXYf7Yv47hpBjUSsdlgWHi+ZgxxOwEZh6ruF/tz95L0ADbtu3r8oVDxpBhgv0y1MeZ7zKuKJmcdah5E5tc8HXOZnMTpntN8DBlMtYb7tC/nDNdjK5c1mlmwu44ZQ2xsFmoaGydg/q6Q8khe5hBCwdMKQWfbPQSfs+
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=34b5.5e3a2987.k2002; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=StzDHDZ5CYEgiSEHy2c/ODkvCf8FNpYaR3SKl57bmwM=; b=UfO1h12hnGIrTt4t648NM8Qu8KHaccAVgxzXB/6uMyypfmmvzOBykNYpO2IwawvLcxgfKOLUtChCnel7THw0Wedz3e5mXO7MQneEI37XraYlOhiah5qfybQ0zm/N06KzInnriMPBPo8tnDykStEl0lXfu6ERhk0RGZ0wi3aliSSHIWG60OzYCkU+EfZXBUM1MWkD32U5VJqL+caTHeYz6T6tkBUNcziTiYNdVvbZ0DoHor9UfwU4lfUXY++m67n9
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HONphkTiKJFeMoP8XFGvQvi_D1I>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Org domaines, not really 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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 02:33:47 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>,
Murray S. Kucherawy  <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <snippage>
>>>
>>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>>> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
>>> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
>>> process [currently] external to DMARC, and then a second document explains
>>> how that process is accomplished using the PSL (and/or PSD, depending on
>>> when the experiment result comes in).

The current DMARC spec essentially says the first part, that you have to find
the org domain but waves its hands about how.

I really would not want to make the PSL a requirement for any spec.
The people who maintain it say in large letters on their web site 
not to use it for any new applications.

There's no technical bar to doing something else.  I have running code
for a DNS lookup technique that does everything the PSL does without a
tree walk at https://github.com/jrlevine/bound

The problem is that we seem unable to agree on any PSL or not-PSL like thing.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly