IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.txt

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Wed, 20 April 2022 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 3A0C23A115B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 (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 XKQZuOUmxBMD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x2b.google.com (mail-oa1-x2b.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2b]) (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 837E13A1144 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2b.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-deb9295679so324515fac.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7Ca7zS0faYswgSSde6kxnUQmg7qmsB9t18pvvi6pmiA=; b=OpkJ/P5Tvbk9j8/1OlF/VR8mvSY0DDXT0jZxFEhID6zkXT3/WhQAKFnM/KDEakcdRl kqrupV/HmIFN9Deg4KVamZNLpsTdZvaOH1bx4BK58T2TQsM8KMsPXFHwqoyYJfYuCS7A MOoZWxNsGDJkgB9MfPHWVgtxiGdJD1XS1l7M2mUCR0bJZl8cJcSmv+Fhv3dRpioeU7Bb TWGG2eQbsEWJKoSe8P3QpC5uelUrI5JRgVnT1TfiKyQgFQ0LbfO+0Cr50zR4l6o4NJuC Z27ftlps4SlG2PAtyZEQifDlcEMtyIpziA53U95bfhwvzIEY7W+rVEeCF7eDjQHgmmux mmXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=7Ca7zS0faYswgSSde6kxnUQmg7qmsB9t18pvvi6pmiA=; b=AmlxjCkrDPhjeRBs88FwUOELJ46HppWJ2Bvp1khoXODLXWpJxl+EGns0aymOU9bNLg YTHMs6E4Ub4zR8Dk+F9gw8hBYZXJiGpdo8HU9q1Ns8gchgPia4KYqOcZBMRe/vSbpm+S na84AOH1JzEVCTwIZwhxHtZq5Gh099FJNW/HajVnj6pYwf7P3ImgPvr/YX3rZXGKXb89 j7bsMgXZvpFqbaE/BOORi4/4p22w2EMH0YHUPXVRkHY+/fTVslK8xSPA3WBhSw9i7OpT wbjO2xJFKIQZYoNSPQtd1DvFatd8ZXgnilyH7sMRa9YDNesDCiIDjBHyW83NMH7u7sl3 uMrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530io+Z/xFs3u/z2uFsbnaV8rvRbLuDpPnJOc+QDe14lvUwUByPp aqH88oDU3v3+XqvI9hNXMAmN3UhwBnnfTvILOPiou6a7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuAlrpbF5uiu7T6VlGv0Jhibpqp0uHmvSt5g7R3LXUDgnfY0GApeKvLavUyM054hxg4IP1V/gIGppHucX0RME=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:2041:b0:de:f8b7:d98e with SMTP id l1-20020a056870204100b000def8b7d98emr491973oad.51.1650413297184; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2148122.ImoBPBQZ76@zini-1880> <20220419211749.AAE543E229C7@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20220419211749.AAE543E229C7@ary.qy>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:08:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfwkJ9+aj=tLf8bs9XuVU8DcaW7CfFLZDcs1kRZh9aj7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fb37f05dd0aca0e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PgXbrham2o83OsZ_Jf3PEEpd9Lc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.txt
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, 20 Apr 2022 00:08:23 -0000

Glad to have your opinion on this.   What is your process for determining
whether a private registrar's clients use their subtree for mail?  I am
aware of several technical obstacles to making that sort of determination,
so I wonder how you both resoled those obstacles.

The jump-to-5 rule was chosen BECAUSE we knew that the PSL had 5-segment
entries.   The choice of 5 instead of 6 was simply a failure to remember
the difference between a registrar domain and its client organizational
domains.

Doug

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:18 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
> >> What PSL entries that are 5 long are you worried about?  When we looked
> at
> >> this before, 5 seemed sufficient.  Changing the number, now, isn't a big
> >> deal.
> >
> >OK, I checked.  Here's the list:
>
> I also recently went through the PSL looking for DMARC records and I agree
> with Scott,
> nothing longer than 5 is likely to be used for mail.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email