IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 29 August 2022 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 AC162C182D65 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=iecc.com header.b=ZKlnqjy4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Smx/smLT
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fiX6wMym6PiF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C72F2C15AE00 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 91741 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2022 18:02:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1665b.630cff2a.k2208; bh=SyLC3LyT/BFGMdesLGODe+3KnRzuNQL6uq0b6kKH7cQ=; b=ZKlnqjy4tG6TZDKyXcvEwBOWoDFW+9S56hdn333sM1PB066rfON4kF4Nr9lIE4CBW2OfYxYhBeQyAnX5J2GyrnkOyUVfemHuD2AK2GcChzb4jlNhHIfW5K/uvHjYl5ncGJXLwuODlqq55qosyBLK0kLgKZXTmpLjZThKvOM4ubhh06pXD3hWq0PaWy9zgkcsWmSuKSEZx8pZxOnUr9xXJV17YhlUNAABSlAIYfX5RZzHBk5nDnAVRkZTvXmSqYRvPiA1I/xsgYmUgWRcXzrFltV04IkG81weC5eonAoldcWKgxxNOrqpHyQSsUkvRGjrP3SX7rpAJszSEPeYLPWmvg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=1665b.630cff2a.k2208; bh=SyLC3LyT/BFGMdesLGODe+3KnRzuNQL6uq0b6kKH7cQ=; b=Smx/smLTeDaHu6Tv8WFAtji05VMXxdwwQrePbFRDMJGXT4WyhcHDFpNOVt2/ZvR1glU5LrmEh6iSaSqRo1ks8lW+pJyiSQbvHJ9UrIjbzavXbgxfVpZYoWMDypqjVfqN6oUbcdvnBVaTi1pimygo0X8Fi8WZLSH9X9I3jsLfjLG3WEQz2w8LpbKOagoLV804mzRLw2zzeNrHn5JEO7GW36Q0InWA6jhoSQgaVgGU5q3tFgBJLEPdDcl6O+0o4CEqfsHlGAJg8QtN7jo2AXoNq3arKdlGNH5t/7zui1R6pOOo5rSZlu4I/h1T0FXfweU8o/YZZvbHqljD7/XIyYWwSA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 29 Aug 2022 18:02:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id BA35948A2DD5; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:02:17 -0400
Message-Id: <20220829180217.BA35948A2DD5@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <1808206.0TLCzVvF1F@zini-1880>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/R9bx0rQ4KuGoUCKaEptrA9cXncw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Issue opened: Use a four-valued token for the four roles of a DMARC policy
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:02:25 -0000

It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
>Unless you are something like .gov or .us.com you don't need to use psd=y.  I 
>think this is likely to lead to confusion and mis-deployment.  The only reason 
>to use psd=n is if the entity above yours in the DNS tree has a DMARC record 
>without psd=y and is an actual PSD.
>
>When we discussed this before, we concluded that while the current protocol 
>definition does technically support embedded PSDs lower in the tree below DMARC 
>organization domains, it's not something that actually happens.

When I went through and looked at all of the domains in the OSL that
have DMARC records, I found a few like uk.com which may send mail, but
they certainly don't act as org records for their subdomains.  There are only
a handful of them and I think we know all the people that run them so to
the extent they need psd=y, we can arrange for that.

I agree with Scott that the proposed text doesn't belong in the draft.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email