Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 09 July 2022 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 C5CFAC159498 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, 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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=L30DuCGp; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=BJ/iy60y
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 dzezmcMvzEe9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (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 C2BD3C15A723 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DBB4F802D1; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 16:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1657397491; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=5asKPCUfnaPqMYZF/nT+U5YyniKwedwqcBBNOdTgk3U=; b=L30DuCGpwQ/sN1IvpcrHNEe80dgi9dFZ0+jeblGMHgILTTqi63VZH26Lb6m/sakdKby9M zoevbJ2cdGxRWlwCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1657397491; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=5asKPCUfnaPqMYZF/nT+U5YyniKwedwqcBBNOdTgk3U=; b=BJ/iy60yIsQU/xILJXV00vrVBwh21Jd05rEE/Kml4JpgeKSFeK1wSlMnlXVVCWeahA54H mlC9Hluc85CbeIVS7dZPeFJZSzVrBiPttuk/rtGxkPtlRcAslqsXv430TiH0A69Ao3T512y 1lu8/tHoZlCUdowHXyPCzy2qOlC/IEDNqs7jsG2tcj5+Wg16gHYozznxpUT4pB34HJ7BV21 wJndv4vteA+1wTRai0eiUtwhkzFX+2FfukPfh5bSoC0fTu/B4qYrxBpvLC/dOu3J8HIzClE mjXA47QitVXAuhr64+0c4uzr6BsDUfHqPSQDyYslxoN7/HChkOZ0g1w1xJvw==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBECFF80232; Sat, 9 Jul 2022 16:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:11:31 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5befe069-1ece-a5b8-2241-2010ec84f0d9@tana.it>
References: <20220707203257.0602A45178AF@ary.qy> <4dd4e7a3-2d7f-ec63-17cc-72c9a7b642ce@tana.it> <85c3002e-047a-1c66-5ab1-953ab6838327@taugh.com> <5befe069-1ece-a5b8-2241-2010ec84f0d9@tana.it>
Message-ID: <E608F735-A35F-4785-9978-D136062C88BE@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/THU-_kpaHX4bOp_2dWnPdJHDWgI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
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: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 20:11:58 -0000


On July 9, 2022 5:07:43 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>On Fri 08/Jul/2022 22:07:09 +0200 John Levine wrote:
>>>> The description of the tree walk should be clear enough.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, /should/!  The very fact that you yourself changed your mind about how it works, without going into the hassle of explaining your reasoning, ...
>> 
>> Um, what?  Scott and I went through some rounds of debugging to be sure the tree walk handled some obscure edge cases in a reasonable way.  It was all on this very mailing list with examples.  I think what we have now is OK but if you find something in the tree walk that is unclear or gets an unreasonable result, let us know, preferably with a concrete example.
>
>
>I think I received all list messages (although I don't check against your weekly count) an I read all of them.  Perhaps I've been inattentive, but I don't recall the switch from stop on psd=y to continue on psd=y if it's the first lookup.  Any pointer?


I don't recall having changed this.  If you can check the previous draft revisions to see when it changed, maybe I could find it.  I'm confident that any changes to the way the tree walk works have been discussed on the list.

>> Having done that, I remind everyone for the umpteenth time that that the overwhelming majority of DMARC publishers and DMARC lookups will not see even one psd tag, much less more than one.  While I could sort of see the use of an appendix describing the normal sorts of DMARC records that real mail operators are likely to publish and evaluate, I cannot see any benefit in wasting yet more time on arcane PSD edge cases.
>
>
>I agree, but I think developers will have to code for corner cases as well, won't they?  Telling programmers to just follow the spec, without trying to understand them seldom results in good code.


Yes, but I don't think it's that complicated.  I may be wrong, but I don't think any of the recent corner case discussions have raised any points that weren't already handled by the code I wrote based on what's in the draft.  I think the last time I had to change anything was when we ditched the reverse tree walk.

Scott K