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

Alessandro Vesely <> Wed, 04 December 2019 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912AE12012C for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cf2KvXtWgUZR for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0422612001E for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:38:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1575455893; bh=uepyKBDkD8DQD+Y6cDGW/pUa2esT54i5joynjEHx8As=; l=730; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CDOvbHeBOp9lDa7su9xIfmhxaEDq6mKXb90ubYrhfCLxOy0rogvviq3sLo7yoNP/5 CIdPHTZcCBxyuswPS2ogBs3bQ9JGGolr9EzlSvA8BjEU25YO7pvUzOEDya+1sxNVMP oPWljxQAsk1WRANT/hmghEmMDwvVyGQGsJhZ0MJnzObNK3gv1c/lny+aid6Mb
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC073.000000005DE78C95.00001086; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 11:38:13 +0100
References: <> <20191111155410.12A31E9E35A@ary.qy> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:38:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:38:19 -0000

On Tue 03/Dec/2019 21:22:28 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> As far as I know we're talking about "dnswl" which is a method, not a ptype. 
> There is one known implementation (CourierMTA, I believe) which is the impetus
> for the registration.  I think the name is constrained to whitelists even
> though DNS-published lists might have the opposite meaning, so I wish there had
> been some discussion before there was an implementation.

Started in 2010, resumed in 2013, the discussion about how to implement whitelisting in Courier-MTA was mainly concerned on configuration syntax.  It is archived here: