Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lookup

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2020 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 59A8F3A127F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Zg19ZEDWGGAq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (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 71C2D3A1281 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id v21so8216978plo.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=/SXFM15uv2XwFa1YMsVdLwdwpSxFxbnuASvK0s3SRp8=; b=PzbRtegdUXEbbIHhnJfl5WeBArotZXgL+f9oklMc77Eoo6DfFP5l8zc4JHfR4QKykS R3EHrgUuk7SWCXWAN6lWESJ4o8Y2aNP4KBNvznIWdSQf9M5UuxqX3s/G8rWieGxfYOGm Pc7dwrbI3wxYXwpMw+b5xWCkyEjz0fnhQ3vKtvwGsAA2yW5Q6t5kDJLa14eCglTL+j30 bniQojqiMEI0VY+2SfOBr45SqfzhhmgW3O0Uprebv8ykq0j04lpcEx8pocb79b+4GZuD uOgypez/EjEkaEDC4sHRPqj1VSODW28HS3JUvRqDtW3R3hUPGrlrieEu2qEQ+xXbhHSa A0Tw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=/SXFM15uv2XwFa1YMsVdLwdwpSxFxbnuASvK0s3SRp8=; b=WgEMVIQE6ksYLU4n1DQcAyCgrM3CYOeb4pPH4kV0vAGIPlVyt0qg4Jxz+W8xQ050yT Th7WR4/bPpvUnb7F06UxzQaDxet8jSgF6z9TYkE5zkmqGtGOKvgiCoNgdYG+SE/r1fUi OygzQdykY5hbb2SY8hZKBkN8OmtWQwv7vg6whGmmASRUIEk3zP+0Gl4TCx3e7dlMvAR2 AaLQ6beLV3ZYTtm63Jrjk0u6sRP3ny1h3cAFso3fl7j+0pxtE7TaGpJRU4Zslt3qv8wL v98zncmI9fn0865jWmFdESq3Rj4qVVj/nKsINI28HraLvXLVV47wpGlVYQCjX1Fn0OAt 4D4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532p2wuzUQaaY6m7J4uT9Vh7xyoTwlrCjamq6ZrD4L7kNMhpawcw MFL2Z8jEw9y1uY7vEx+A6D+RAlAx++g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqaVKANiZ/c4driwUXkgCzjKyZjBZxxeMV+opSc69hFpgFPvInpy4refzvgmIef46i1OaDGA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8506:b029:d9:6dd:45ea with SMTP id bj6-20020a1709028506b02900d906dd45eamr1082286plb.72.1606165593640; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.62.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 205sm10989961pge.76.2020.11.23.13.06.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Jesse Thompson <jesse.thompson=40wisc.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <ed1e3ada-46a5-7489-908d-3935c576062@taugh.com> <9e6bac98-47fa-92e3-8552-7f4839d37e60@wisc.edu> <77bbde18-5720-63ca-53b0-6b41f2ea60ed@dcrocker.net> <b420f663-3fe0-2b08-b750-4ba10a95c69e@wisc.edu>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9f388e33-c15d-9fcc-e9d3-d7719288fb98@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:06:31 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b420f663-3fe0-2b08-b750-4ba10a95c69e@wisc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/II1-8mEPgIIPSmE0nK9olmdARRQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lookup
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 21:06:35 -0000

On 11/23/2020 1:04 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> I meant to suggest that the requirement for a tree walk would be that the Organizational Domain would need to have that in its policy.  It seems like a decent compromise for the people worried about unnecessary DNS lookup overhead.

Except that it can't 'trigger' a tree walk.

On the other hand, it might declare itself to be the (an?) OD.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org