Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.txt

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 20 April 2022 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 5975D3A0A2B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 FylhLEYEVOyX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f51.google.com (mail-ej1-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234803A0A33 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f51.google.com with SMTP id r13so4687924ejd.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q93ayJadG5q9dUdF5zkSvjmZokzrlWYwLucHUtiSm2A=; b=FIjujATcnMSqMpFDH55TZC4fJlYp0cmIwbCWKGcuyUJ0pNOFwbwzXmmz76MA+ZsddA JFuhI1sndxh0pFD3eR75pqYARFCBmhZ9Sehw1RlivvONCji0r8J9Lu0a57umnY0NZtVx wT5oUmn+2WglR23lRIcTq7qiJp52SoP1Ksdl+huen+QBz9Pj1ah3xqtxYlw16t5iaM+M WGk7zu3DIpTD2fHdRAjn6bogOOEFPF+HGBiz3X09ap2sx6yjkMMwBsOfjsDPE6k5ImYc HPl7nVtxEbzRZnYSupe8ANssgBT4sZG83edJp5YWu9Q8QCRHooEX5Lgrg9VpoQmj9KGm gCjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yQmc2nAu/8pZfTqJA4Im289D6Kp8scG+qJ2PN2d2xFXTWxo1b UtF6VBpvH5wnxoJc8mIV8vCYaTV5iVlm73l023g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydztgNGaRwFxbUFzvn7iH153BDXgzUhBsOpdbX9FfgSGLh72jnMRCMy6HkgJ0qqXYkUEm5ScJOtvV0U2KsUU4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c8f:b0:6e8:f898:63bb with SMTP id nb15-20020a1709071c8f00b006e8f89863bbmr19823776ejc.721.1650472478367; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH48ZfwkJ9+aj=tLf8bs9XuVU8DcaW7CfFLZDcs1kRZh9aj7TQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220420162541.186473E2BCF5@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20220420162541.186473E2BCF5@ary.qy>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:34:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+k-SC8J45onwmL7fwpxLEXsnsvh1MLusW6zW-MqoLoPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/j74A8tDANVmGuoUfTXFjSm9As_Y>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.txt
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:34:41 -0000

>> Glad to have your opinion on this.   What is your process for determining
>> whether a private registrar's clients use their subtree for mail?
>
> Look at them and see if they'd be plausibly be used for mail.

And to throw something else out here:

"Look at them and see if they'd be plausibly be used for mail,"
doesn't scale and isn't a reasonable heuristic to apply *in* the
protocol.

But it *is* a reasonable mechanism to use when deciding what makes
sense when we're *defining* the protocol.  As I see it, we performed
the analysis, looked at the options, and decided what reasonable
parameters are, given the information we had and the analysis of it.
None of that's changed, and the analysis and decisions are still
sensible.

Barry