Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lookup
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 24 November 2020 12:20 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 C97E53A09DA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 04:20:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 QNABZE-QwCzS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 04:19:59 -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 2A32C3A09D3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 04:19:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1606220394; bh=W48jF7itlL5KNQbKXEYZU1TJ78Fxz1S3ID9r4ch9VUM=; l=820; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A+e9I1E3Cc0n7Z1cZ4jcFlFuipjOjlUnn/m8GiLVqT4sSaT83XLqDzWf6t2b8D1zT nG5FwV1nm/Epbbd6LHjhmuRlVXBaZFj05PHI8ZyVSFhI8CPbTurgsrjzZ5d25ECGrQ vr7c0CmOKbvi4uVrcjWzX0KwO8YvVwsO5oPQ2cCMCxzP86O+fI03parI7lIzQ
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 00000000005DC081.000000005FBCFA6A.0000614A; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:19:54 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201123213846.EB14127C8160@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <efa0117e-5b17-800d-820d-b5d2413c6075@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:19:54 +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: <20201123213846.EB14127C8160@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Qp0q_CaN8f9kQT6wUsyN2pJHtjk>
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:20:01 -0000
On Mon 23/Nov/2020 22:38:46 +0100 John Levine wrote: > In article <9f388e33-c15d-9fcc-e9d3-d7719288fb98@gmail.com> you write: >>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. > > If I'm going to go to the effort to download and decode a PSL and find the OD, I'll just use the OD. > > One of the points of the tree walk is to get rid of the PSL processing. The PSL processing is a local lookup on an in-memory suffix tree. How is it a progress to replace it with a tree walk? A PSL search is lightning faster than even a single DNS lookup, isn't it? Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lo… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Joseph Brennan
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Todd Herr
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Jesse Thompson
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Doug Foster
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… John R Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… John Levine
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… ned+dmarc
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PS… Alessandro Vesely