IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Organizational domains, threat or menage, was On splitting documents and DBOUND

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 12 November 2020 16:45 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 427F13A128E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:45:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NB2gNz4gA7r for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 0EEAE3A13F3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:44:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1605199497; bh=2sRwQn4vQlLutEgRTiM0yw6pxjOHrx+48MPIu4emEs8=; l=812; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C3nKQBjlpNGhuH61ZfQqcZ/fKK4n0VBifqQlafQ4eD5g8YMrhMZSTBhL9wYn9iMpb h/GBdIcrMz32Za3BkGx9A7NBFrBcbZqxXpE4I4cIeJXDmXEtG5dGpq2lOjrT8LRsLG 9IhDamqnGsaGtSuSo82FMtdhfy7G5EZX8EAUc/NKXOz1rgli+6BubaukzkvxT
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC081.000000005FAD6689.00000F9F; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:44:57 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201111022444.AF87925EE227@ary.qy> <8859f121-f9da-3017-5c51-063552ff4e2a@dcrocker.net> <11adfbd2-e06e-2cf-7a25-53f256aa30c@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwYTgn8Nv6dQ==MoGneiDX9XvZDHJkUFjPxd_3Ub1==hkg@mail.gmail.com> <ae6e0854-ad48-3d94-1bd4-f7521b8c46f2@dcrocker.net> <fab91047-08d6-e0db-9f3b-99c2ad4d8b50@tana.it>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <f024f99e-2298-ecf9-d6ed-8d4e6de473db@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:44:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fab91047-08d6-e0db-9f3b-99c2ad4d8b50@tana.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Qdfcb-7qL4VHLS4SBHZAW5j3xvk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Organizational domains, threat or menage, was On splitting documents and DBOUND
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:45:01 -0000

On Thu 12/Nov/2020 10:40:17 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 11/Nov/2020 18:38:41 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 11/11/2020 8:58 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> The proposal is, I think, to change the main document to leave a pointer, 
>>> and the pointer can be changed much more easily than the actual method.  So 
>>> the new DMARC document would say: "Determine the Organizational Domain.  The 
>>> legacy way to do this can be found in [other-RFC], but other better methods 
>>> are anticipated."
>>
>> wfm.
> 
> 
> +1,  Perhaps we could say "Organizational Domain or a domain thence delegated" 
> rather than anticipating unspecified methods.  I think DMARC will require the 
> (implied) consent of the interested domain for the foreseeable future.


Oops, s/interested/concerned/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email