Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 19:13 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 1ADD212097B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=noMO6V9U; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cceTJQup
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 QqsFq75ZGCz2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 D875C120977 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 56766 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2019 19:13:49 -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; s=ddbc.5d28dbed.k1907; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Gy7qTTQ5cIT0rkW/n0l9gq0qqGQWqLmahnDabuo+jcQ=; b=noMO6V9UjeYj7Kok0F75comnXdeMv9hH5xMPCuy10t5tOO6rgVqdiMBaG8brYnuxeYk6VllP+54c4ttODeENyW2npczIxd3YEaOKA+OiJGqpDzB3Jj9s6m3J2i/KBgkyOniukwOiE1XutTIkUffU7aAOPvx64onnLdRfUUKlze+Rqdb20sMe+Dcfv89HzMt+AmHBfbdL7RsxN9pVd9MgKgMl+J8euRnfKwGgPwggpaRuFQYUCLUoIzUud1TXGXTD
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; s=ddbc.5d28dbed.k1907; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=Gy7qTTQ5cIT0rkW/n0l9gq0qqGQWqLmahnDabuo+jcQ=; b=cceTJQupjgJPM/ohteLBEK1/CfGdNfuMAdVjjuMXSiMU2TPRCBmiwkeFfHLrRs0dZXmqXRIpll/clRDvg/e5F0DrYfvVVeCQ0y3BfOzl4CUFVXxGAe5RQbxORxMt0+d0Xjqq86AMwaYECVuS8ZwTkNdXUjowwB0nI8eiztbtrWaNcZR6VtZf33jRg1vvAFxSiEDJTS6mCl2ZQlR7JNzVjEOjOZ07t5A77TKGEl8S5wUED7uOLJQmQPWLj+dhWdRA
Received: from ary.local ([71.59.64.39]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 12 Jul 2019 19:13:49 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id B10D94A0F89; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 12 Jul 2019 15:13:48 -0400
Message-Id: <20190712191348.B10D94A0F89@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: seth@sethblank.com
In-Reply-To: <CAD2i3WNigYz8vk-FwFCgy0y=HJep_m9ncwj7wpTqrTMUhq0qLA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/VCh02Z5KftYiNKR0gIaMelxheK8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 19:13:56 -0000

In article <CAD2i3WNigYz8vk-FwFCgy0y=HJep_m9ncwj7wpTqrTMUhq0qLA@mail.gmail.com>; you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:55 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>; wrote:
>
>> I am much more concerned with adding another tag that can only be used in
>> a PSD-DMARC record. I would be much more open to make a "normative" change
>> to the DMARC tag list (RFC 7489 section 11.4) to define np for any DMARC
>> record, than to make this a special case for PSD-DMARC records.
>>
>
>I am also concerned with adding any new policy-related tags, due to the
>confusion they create that limits adoption. However, a very clear case for
>an NXDOMAIN policy has been made by UK NCSC for .gov.uk, and both .gov and
>.mil have stated they also want this behavior. Others have shared similar
>opinions privately.

How do they feel about NODATA, which is not the same as NXDOMAIN?

R's,
John