Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

["Brotman, Alex" <[e-mail]>]

I was sort of curious yesterday and checked as well.  Most were four or less.  I had a number that were five or six.  A couple dozen were at eight.  I had one spam message that had 13 parts.  It included both "_mta-sts" and "mta-sts" in there, as well as "mail" nine times.  The last two parts were the org domain.

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmarc <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 4:06 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-
> ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> In article
> <[e-mail]
> a.mil> you write:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >Even for .mil, the vast majority of email domains are fairly short with
> >four or fewer labels. Most of the other ones tend to be individual servers that
> send automatic performance emails, and I think should be considered more of
> an edge case and less of our concern.
>
> I scraped my logs for the past few months and that's what I found.
> Nearly everything was four labels or less. Spot checking the few five-label
> names, I found that most of the mail was all from MAILER-DAEMON@<long-
> mailhost-name> and it appeared to be spam blowback.  There was a trickle of
> what looked like real mail from stumail.zcs.k12.in.us and feedback.retail.voice-
> your-views.hsbc.com,
>
> I found nothing at all with six labels or longer.
>
> So if we made the tree walk limit six or seven I think we'd be unlikely to lose any
> mail that anyone would miss.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!
> !CQl3mcHX2A!TIKw8O7ptxZvJLkZ0GxAxe4haD43V7NWTdLfVAZUiJUaCqFVIV1co
> wazKVYiV8c2YXTskHmvzw$