Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <> Wed, 05 February 2020 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D625120096 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:30:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FW7QVhtduMpA for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 837FE120045 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f5so925584ilq.5 for <>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:30:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FNo0XB0XIIJPAZWlpvIz3a/kKMSxAJKLamCd72Jpz74=; b=AdGDBHXzYbQZhxIsu5ySd3dW2mAIvQE/AXR1/1bIdXAHt3K2NV5qNJrULcFupRVM0C AqngUVzLwaGyIIUeN2MNwxsBNG1MQlmHjE3/MQT89jqnM+S+Hnf+/ueNhEXVH+fURSgD sYjm9MowRrpTrWAcg0Nwe6GvgqGPAUoGQjLi8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FNo0XB0XIIJPAZWlpvIz3a/kKMSxAJKLamCd72Jpz74=; b=mtSNzhdRCZ6YkYFT2QUNoQDjHp6678RCFTGAm5zkIX9jFw9r0IJZHVdWB+/tf0jM8h aOLN/IOATyE1jCgVUBcZ0Np7vzlzK0LgaYFF/zlVLZDtQfuer3oyk3LUhdOxz0Dyluqc 6rUI6cy+2+8SFmRAQzUXXMOfGMaL83aYer5WOkQzil3/hPZQqRBIqTTh8/a0gfMpavoa AHT8NBu4kDZSeVWPD75podJ/kkZmBnyceksAn9bUi/xNxKf2GCrZ9HMl+IVW9jTFia6/ +vhbhMCIE6EH+oN2r91wyhUxAMhbvjZwIY12xvaSM/prSAAnI7OEHq+KXgfsYb6u3Y/p GqXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxEh6RgPLCtHjEGkaSWBk1iuwGS3x41s/yJIJF3uJfZYgdCzH2 u6y7wIhtGPGw/lQR2oHRlcIcAP7WRYQaIuBl50na85FCXBP72A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxHL4grQiYJk15Ddm3OBQJaIs0eXN4NJ5RUc1KiJ2ig4QGqrqXZYbOnYmXQw5IRAIei0PKeEwxsI4GfcJunt60=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:b506:: with SMTP id f6mr25023218ile.103.1580884211762; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:30:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <4570465.bmySQvRiU0@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <4570465.bmySQvRiU0@l5580>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:29:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dfa39c059dce493a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:30:14 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:13 PM Scott Kitterman <>

> Assuming that's correct, please help me understand what PSD DMARC is
> affected at all.  All it does is consume the org domain however
> DMARC/DMARCbis choose to define it.  I don't see as it makes a difference
> from a PSD DMARC perspective.
> I get that you want to fix the architectural warts in DMARC and I don't
> disagree with you about working on that.  Where I get lost is how PSD DMARC
> has anything to do with it.  PSD DMARC could be done first, in parallel, or
> after the DMARC architectural work.  It would have no impact on that work.
> I would like to understand your position, but I don't, so please help me
> out here.


Thank you for expressing this so clearly. This is exactly the issue that
I've been trying to understand in this series of conversations. It seems
like the PSD proposal has been being used as leverage to have an (almost)
entirely separate discussion about DMARCbis.