IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 01 April 2024 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 15869C14E515 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XIk0jweGWZ2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AF90C14F695 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1711967837; bh=pSxOLlJ0syIHP4wKZY7lNxDYZF3CkV6WwdW8unT3HK0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DAAbrDTI3PaY8w4v1+PkMd1v870T4297Loz4GutK228sx1bCd8qTK6oIf2E5e9s9i IxMJfKSqAXSX8KttQuPYFo7+jPSwgGCuK3IpmTarF6DZxv8YL82pJK5JAFOx5mjT5g Za6fuC+ir9rw8O/iK0uA0QjRhgM1BI+tWSUtk5RoW1A3xZV9zOCTTh3/Vh8B3
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC25D.00000000660A8E5D.00004111; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 12:37:17 +0200
Message-ID: <14031692-e3cc-44d3-b53b-c7b7cfa683cf@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 12:37:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <F5158C76-BD86-4540-965D-F0D8664B6CD9@bluepopcorn.net> <85761761-ad6a-2a19-da82-344ed52c2391@iecc.com> <B4365E6E-00DF-425E-9974-6EE1DE057319@bluepopcorn.net> <4d462513-6c1a-c1da-d62c-68d41bba6465@iecc.com> <CEC36155-584E-46FD-AE3E-AB511CBD843F@bluepopcorn.net> <5d153d2c-a2c6-097d-a249-27e95ff9323d@iecc.com> <A9A1C60A-D49B-4519-976C-133B2470F59C@kitterman.com> <CAOZAAfMo9AN4-YeFN+1P9m0SHtZYiAs45_KRRq6Kd6FpRpbxbw@mail.gmail.com> <56E1CDC5-3185-4EEB-90B7-6EA10183CF18@kitterman.com> <CAOZAAfMTv87KUWJwQdKRgW2M33k275ZgEoc-KcT8vOWvATv2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfMTv87KUWJwQdKRgW2M33k275ZgEoc-KcT8vOWvATv2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/M8CJS38VL4xBD_Y5eaWTF_kZm3I>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 Apr 2024 10:37:28 -0000

On Sun 31/Mar/2024 22:27:21 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
> I’m saying, as an individual, that there was a thread where we discussed a new 
> N for the tree walk. There was appetite, but no new N was settled on.


Maybe we just need to leave some leeway to implementers.  Another doubt when 
going to higher Ns is why not explore a bit around the local domain before 
jumping near the root.  I mean, for example, for N=6 one could lookup:

_dmarc.a.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.mail.example.com
_dmarc.example.com
_dmarc.com

I know the result has to be the same for all,  and it will.  The limiting N is 
a countermeasure against possible abuses, which are not the core cases.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email