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

Dave Crocker <> Sun, 18 August 2019 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E74120059 for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZvpnKl32N3HJ for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D116B12002E for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r20so14043776ota.5 for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=63BoxoA85SRTbD7kzyckYzdM0aOPj0Bt6iBQDDZvu/E=; b=EUZNi8A2+cdXNNnNgthi6wqj0DAN1wr4aUZYf7tgwlfb05mDjHpyGaNTzOTT2r3MhZ YtnRA3mJHRMvp83GDINek5BOI5O7EGShoA+gc4+dlQ5xGOpok63pYJsgDLD2AlczPmcl MchsvlotfMFi3ohSp3vbQ2/8q0BjJy6joxj4isFcBgNwwxgjOrvgyYZusA92DPkO0DBR H0OUWQL+WUbp+agrBcKZAKxwVbi+86agnRVFfJpoz0e1qutJNwuD8ksvb4XW2/CGzxGt J2LhWdFLv8MI8bsB9mP+ADP23n7zUtybYOFFsoFyARfUe8AkvAuZA3uwu554ccCM5wp7 tLrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=63BoxoA85SRTbD7kzyckYzdM0aOPj0Bt6iBQDDZvu/E=; b=be1MMYGOAIiAlaD57wXfhdJzM9MJpWC1llUMahAci/oPaD+g7Kwl0/HR2i0QmgobFF ypv4nLkWpYdt4GLPpNYVb02o8z7QydwMHNJ6g32EyPFUPECBN0X2/XsZqSSz5dZqZ56K 7GJRIkw64qP8RhujcV1YAyuJaw62eGKpC3Qgfvh3klHqIobVuUaXv+LE9xUliDbZIQlP F6mXVShX2P25ZwrNv8FNWKh2mFWVknldZWjawGgZ8gkud1BrEuUzkU9xXoERCK+OM3aR yhP9a2n8z9z9ebPLDhdUt1lS9CjOjkd6uBv8ijohBrxmKZOfSMpFsFxL7rKq4l3CASPp yA2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4AuzObqbqK03lTK5v1iFRQHHTLLA2kFKpkMlI9UNzsjgi2ctj 9xOfgZKhboviG1vh2/0N4A0PMlNC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwZPn132T/rySSo77Hl6y5abjaZnI6L3WE2018TBySNB1+lObJsdqxQzARk1DALa0LaQccyRw==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:851:: with SMTP id 75mr16147413oty.341.1566151290746; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:592d:6d9b:109f:2f? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:592d:6d9b:109f:2f]) by with ESMTPSA id a1sm4425439otl.66.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alessandro Vesely <>
References: <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:01:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:01:33 -0000

On 8/15/2019 3:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> I hope
> large fragments of it will make their way to either the PSD draft or
> the reviewed DMARC spec itself.

Thanks for the kind words, but they actually run counter to the larger 
message I meant to impart:  The entire PSD approach is problematic. 
This is not fixable.  A different approach is needed.

Making the draft Experimental is actually counter-productive, in that 
regard.  It puts a stamp of IETF approval.  The fact of Experimental is 
less significant than the fact of an IETF consensus stamp of encouragement.

There is also the small matter of a small (actually tiny) base of 
demonstrated support for this proposal.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking