IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 17 July 2022 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 B4186C16ECD2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=PKQoEMAb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=FzH8Ua8a
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6YfakR5Rvv6T for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 09:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D70C7C16ECC2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 09:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17867 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2022 16:32:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=45c7.62d43993.k2207; bh=sXG+2W1MiKoKKOr7tml3bAvaS8kjgXgPQ1+66qMjnoQ=; b=PKQoEMAbp64v0xbhNDpOblnVVOUt+Lk5M/qLmlANeeGWvMxNn00glhBPcp3H5XfrHwW8JAtq6ty0YKg9SMlTZ6NRgURAKHxH5LaS0DoOyGCDqOsO9qSrjwrblxGB5p3s1xycxTqVVdNLjFkCsZj86JsVBYoCPoQ4R3AyPhLar2fNdEHeaCqSApQABfkjMPll6SfVCPJQStOlr8AMudEbv7Ta4kUa9ZjPoWmMSfwisisCOjz++DcSj4//7KR2HwA4LChVMVFxVB/wP7+VvQFHuahf63P9GH+eD2p24KpzEt1YAHZKycblIRipyFY+bjhcbHEdZfBtHEzuE4u5/ag6+w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=45c7.62d43993.k2207; bh=sXG+2W1MiKoKKOr7tml3bAvaS8kjgXgPQ1+66qMjnoQ=; b=FzH8Ua8a86DAUL48ubvgNUks4HwFrHADOQhoU0Ls4dXoQdzDEyU9twTUv5FCv1JEkelwY8HJNywGelmbgCqF1Fy7z0xOHJaSvVgvYUbXq659IdkBAd0wY1tQokXPJVbeFmqt0yNtUOfAz5uJrDDWchaF2K19dFnubE+sD5uerE3tXAAE15nfPpiXNMz6swt4r5ow5Js1Nr7APZeSl2isIbUFqLlV+x5aGxk5RMzktxixGyMUZLwP76bfO3UPU/RnpCFU1xxmF0yE+/aMJXAwdC1Y9MNDXAHctpF8h5P4fH/0kDbu6gRlhtFqu5bYA8e3gnUxbLeXM1jIhqLcdnZJ2w==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 17 Jul 2022 16:32:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6AE2C461AE7C; Sun, 17 Jul 2022 12:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 12:32:18 -0400
Message-Id: <20220717163218.6AE2C461AE7C@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <479b4664-7650-2760-ab9d-f6012020252d@tana.it>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/mAeoBTQhK2P6njMd0ZSJWM2mdYY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:32:27 -0000

It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>> Indeed, and even so the tree walk gets the right answer nearly 100% of
>> the time, right now.
>> 
>> PSDs are rare, "abnormal" PSDs are even rarer.  The PSD tag is in arcane nit.
>> 
>> While I'm not opposed to the psd tags, I really wish people would get
>> some perspective. The amount of mail they affect is tiny, the amount
>> affected by uber-nits like whether a PSD can be an org domain is too
>> small to waste so much time on.
>
>What are the odds that malloc() returns NULL?  Do you always check it?

I can only guess what this total non-sequitur is supposed to mean.

Yes, we should properly account for PSD's in the tree walk. No, we
should not waste even more time arguing about it.

If you believe there are situations where the currently specified tree
walk gets the wrong result, please give us a worked out example showing
all of the domains and DMARC records involved.  Otherwise, please stop.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email