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

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 10 December 2019 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DF11200C7 for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:33:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoESJT9bF2Dn for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C806612001A for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x195so8436594oix.4 for <>; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:33:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dqVyaU8q65bKlaouF8JiIMhXMYRYzfzWPveTdFi/6zs=; b=juybC4JDdwKktAXeDlhP8wzW9AnRcgvhwY2cLLM9M0HU79m1AT2Ix/H0l9VUZivHt0 cVM1Z2vsG1niuDMR4zUgMhoj+XRb/QPUmHi1KtEq1zcQ5HuguoUSmw3+ILoY1g82BWiV 5kkHUq0HaeQM2/B3ljtjXNExe8SD+RZSik7E5H8CffaMtfy51DsYgrgEaANQWO8qpj9l /rbTWfftL9uT1IsM0kWhcdIjlWdrGlMDgHr9RaHU4mzNkNsRZD5OmshfyIHU+TsPQ3hR XQ17IknwjqLoMINGQ1A+JcLa3DJyBp6xsJOA/1a8Ss/gtYwe3NpWLEupkf+LyQHkgvzQ T/gw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dqVyaU8q65bKlaouF8JiIMhXMYRYzfzWPveTdFi/6zs=; b=hnqb71YGG35nj9/5ziS6ncoQy9hQ6ueiA5adc7boFwVK/mIZ7HAFUt9o2xePRZZy6u EZ6MzKJwzeMVEFkyranDsYK8vG2iSAjeKG2qgs7UV+nHKwCs6t05X+QqVgUx4xhMdk2A s5ZaADvY+8Ph2d+owp0pXLga1EjWE+hJ8gRhzUnBZuh93nJ9Q8R1ChH6THs1Xbo198Wa RrZur6Gw5zXRJrK4daxWs3cZkXSNGlTBDSmSAqGn9HszNNd2Cht4B9F5W+VZmGygLern xKAtBjdMxDFYLPKyw65sxhaSdLXJ5+hw0fy/jMlrhj8IsXYsTkPb0D/Ok0PjffddXVqc g3Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJq7eR86AcCMcN2M51BAuTiQuSObk9fuJw5ClqH0NYQhBCIWMP 0Zk+yyZw+zvOp43+eiBq36g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbLSFYMGxTqHS5rqvUqumiHVORbyYd+7g4wOczbFC++E+vRvxJEFK3o5NN/r/x260jxXpA9A==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cdca:: with SMTP id d193mr2120003oig.152.1575945225906; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:794c:7c66:451f:c72b? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:794c:7c66:451f:c72b]) by with ESMTPSA id q22sm806997otm.2.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2019 18:33:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Brandon Long <>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Tim Wicinski <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Scott Kitterman <>, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:33:39 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CE9E399E29F4FC1ECC28D091"
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:33:49 -0000

On 12/9/2019 4:41 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> I mean, the PSL is already a maintained object.  Is this new detail 
> something
> that has different ownership/privacy/etc concerns than the existing 
> details?

So, ummm, you want to replace one problematic operation with another?

On the consumption side, I've only heard comments that the PSL has 
problems.  On the provision side, I've heard vigorous and repeated 
claims of overwork of the the volunteer force, sufficient that there is 
no bandwidth for dealing with revision/replacement efforts.

> I'm sure I probably missed this, but couldn't we avoid this question 
> by just mandating
> no reporting for non-existing organizational domains?  Is that a 
> non-starter?

Without commenting on the merits of that suggesting, I'll offer that it 
is an example of why this spec is -- at its very best -- still 
incomplete, or at least the thinking about how it will get used is 
incomplete. (if workable at scale.)


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking