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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Fri 02/Aug/2019 21:58:30 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> Why would the thing attaching "dnswl=pass" not also interpret "policy.ip"?
> I would expect it to have that knowledge, not downstream things.  Again, I
> don't know what the value of "dnswl=pass" is if the thing attaching it
> doesn't even know how to interpret the result it got.


If the A-R producer could interpret the encoding then it could write something
like policy.trustworthiness=x instead of policy.ip=127.x.y.z.  However, in the
words of rfc5782:

   There is no widely used convention for mapping sublist names to bits
   or values, beyond the convention that all A values SHOULD be in the
   127.0.0.0/8 range to prevent unwanted network traffic if the value is
   erroneously used as an IP address.

It turned out that there is no simple syntax to configure which bits of the A
value bear which meaning.  For usability reason, in the case at hand, the
syntax was simplified  by requiring the color of the zone, that is[*]:

   -block=zone[,var[/n.n.n.n][,msg]] or -allow=zone[,var[/n.n.n.n[,]]]

IOW, dnswl=pass means the sender was whitelisted.


Best
Ale

-- 
[*] https://www.courier-mta.org/couriertcpd.html