Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 11 June 2019 15:38 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 15E57120278 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 oZ0b60P3SEEF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D42712027A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1560267483; bh=e7D44+7hcxfBRu+FQB0P3y8Mo2sl04M/ZfZhpRggtAY=; l=1054; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C9fOoRHSegAvH5cxBoSNxj0Ii6TARizwLeHMxayVVCuSdNcTC3vLQ6jwouHXM/sNw bki3nRj3oH0HGM9uIS204HPacgnuQg/vDCOuyOTIgS1lrsRYjsLBLhtl6e1+ukCPcC RyV1xZnn7pYnbNXlqtdt4m89KYcyabBVPpGG4bHn2n31HAujbPHJ3VfPtTVYX
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:38:03 +0200 id 00000000005DC02F.000000005CFFCADB.00003440
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <LO2P123MB2334F6DE24EFE7FF43DEDB39AD180@LO2P123MB2334.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAD2i3WPsdoJEnhRLCTdyd3xkQ_+5NkVKqekBQGmL2U7233KVRw@mail.gmail.com> <LO2P123MB23346502F9B6F1EE38269147AD130@LO2P123MB2334.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5425365.YBKd1By0BY@l5580>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <4ba6fbe5-80f1-1b68-c61e-57cd1ad312e2@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:38:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5425365.YBKd1By0BY@l5580>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fb1lmfcvKZ3nu2Xz_waSVIs9C5w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:38:16 -0000
On Tue 11/Jun/2019 00:41:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, June 10, 2019 8:07:25 AM EDT Richard C wrote: > >> Presumably other PSDs that aren’t brand new will have this problem too? I’m >> interested to hear whether we’re on our own or not. > > As written, DMARC (RFC 7489) has the option to express different policy for > subdomains (sp= tag). Perhaps we could address this case in PSD DMARC by > leveraging that feature. > > PSD DMARC is the first time there is any DMARC related explicit guidance on > non-existent sub-domains. If we made it a rule that non-existent sub-domains > use the domain level (p=) policy and existent sub-domains use the sub-domain > policy (sp=) then I believe the affect you are after is achievable. Rather than altering p= and sp=, I'd add an np=, say, for non-existing domains: * It certainly would gather more attention by implementers, * Domain owners could monitor <policy_published> to check it. * It allows the main domain to have a non-reject policy. Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdomains Richard C
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Richard C
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC PSD and non-existent subdo… Hector Santos