IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 17 July 2022 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 6240DC16ECB1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 03:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.13 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=tana.it header.b=ClYo+joa; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=DTzMsahB
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 pP3S0iPYYq9f for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 03:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10BB3C15948B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 03:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1658054741; bh=UT9FdQyeUeo0I3TMR30MBcRwHhTkDXhJfNhP3t/3NnE=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=ClYo+joaLa0C4K6EC8ZbkEaeO1Ksef0iDb8oDrqN4ACqXt17lUfkYAngUf+QJPL9M q05LEceUtSLha5IMpkGBA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1658054741; bh=UT9FdQyeUeo0I3TMR30MBcRwHhTkDXhJfNhP3t/3NnE=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DTzMsahB25B4VoWUj4717R9cFOVqKj1DD2ey2Y/lohRAvcfmdVGttElxfYYPC6tzR O6oqnCxadgiB8NXabV1O6ehbkU/xqvcwrFZfs+EAurtU00wzes2Lnu6lyPmcJqTInb 4jGj+3eeVji9UR2xt/f/6zCE5BrkaOwbc1jUfAbB184BB/c7JxHciEP5q4sAl
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (host-87-4-196-130.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.4.196.130]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.0000000062D3E855.00000CB2; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 12:45:41 +0200
Message-ID: <479b4664-7650-2760-ab9d-f6012020252d@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 12:45:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220716161216.12430460B011@ary.qy>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <20220716161216.12430460B011@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Y5_1gN44GrFx56C66CQJVyUz0nw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document
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: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 10:45:52 -0000

On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:12:14 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>>> No, it's not an accident.  We designed the tree walk based on our knowledge of the way people publish DMARC records.
>> 
>> I don't understand this unwearying opposition irrespective of the
>> argument.  If you do a tree walk NOW (which is why I said currently)
>> you have exactly 0 probability to determine an abnormal PSD, since the
>> tag hasn't been assigned yet.
> 
> Indeed, and even so the tree walk gets the right answer nearly 100% of
> the time, right now.
> 
> PSDs are rare, "abnormal" PSDs are even rarer.  The PSD tag is in arcane nit.
> 
> While I'm not opposed to the psd tags, I really wish people would get
> some perspective. The amount of mail they affect is tiny, the amount
> affected by uber-nits like whether a PSD can be an org domain is too
> small to waste so much time on.


What are the odds that malloc() returns NULL?  Do you always check it?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email