[dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Thu, 01 August 2019 22:16 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 B66A612018C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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=iaZ7DDHT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=UtT09IMB
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 0S8ro6JaMCQl for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BA7412001A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 15:16:03 -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 DFCF7F807F3; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1564697731; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=K9erpdxzUPmceDwFTV0N/uEiMkckfX0jAOD6k1BZ9Vc=; b=iaZ7DDHTKiA5w7B575k/U2Uy66GIPv+IExA7VRkg5KeBAuquCIZ58p9f NOW8bM3rdxFDIUYUHpiQpgeRzrXgBg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1564697731; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=K9erpdxzUPmceDwFTV0N/uEiMkckfX0jAOD6k1BZ9Vc=; b=UtT09IMBk9Vz7pwNTBzXy9CAvC9CMpgZUwMw/PD1CC7lYesibeJC4Xn2 PUWnMBVJh/qZDrVjLG7FO/Y7KyaDU1exJ+L30AZoMVff6OmLtxpHP6NXps jtQ1wVjzpvPk6B18EWb937doWoKnrP22myPdQ0kYJZwa8/kMYqDGJOW8XK UkuMf+aAtNplnSXYxYUoRh1s2m8J6DkAynbv+DMzcuZwDkEVxhpVendzwm H1bQLb1tvc81Yn2MaEgvE/DT+QC9UyxZ8GRyMAU4Yx/cHCsYFi9Tovic/V aNRRjA8DbPPeMb5C1NuqIKS05fXE0M9LprmrYnXjBLcTR/MMLstwaA==
Received: from [10.67.225.129] (mobile-166-170-33-245.mycingular.net [166.170.33.245]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AC41F8077C; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 22:15:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7a21b80b-e6bb-d8b9-cf63-601a8d1e47e7@tana.it>
References: <e580ada3-d9b5-0e5b-9ac3-eade41ac92d2@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa5yR5dVzkDSD48MDgpUa11+ri=KOwrNSqOxi8fB2i6PA@mail.gmail.com> <eabefc6b-7542-1a46-4272-b786433ed0b5@tana.it> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <CAL0qLwb5FAaYZ7AX_H=aeUFkv8cvY+xd1bQ5uCDp4tmrbx2CQg@mail.gmail.com> <7a21b80b-e6bb-d8b9-cf63-601a8d1e47e7@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <C1E711A8-F3A6-4A20-B71D-53FA773A61D9@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_F8Oo_dG-GEPIFxo79-D49AnhDI>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 22:16:05 -0000

Taking a step back, iprev uses the policy ptype.  It's also based on local interpretation of DNS data.  Why doesn't policy work for dnswl just like for iprev?

Scott K