Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD flag vs Version bump

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hm...

Why not say "SHOULD use tree walk", and then document, as explanation
for "SHOULD" instead of "MUST", non-normative reasons why you might
not?

Waddyathink?

Barry


On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 5:05 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> >What's the incentive that any existing DMARC users (senders or receivers) would have to invest additional resources in another email
> >authentication protocol?
>
> We have two of the largest mail operators in the world saying that if
> they can't tell which org domain scheme domain expects, they won't
> implement the tree walk. We have to do something or we are wasting our
> time.
>
> So how about this: in the tree walk, you look for DMARC records that
> have an explicit psd=y/n/u tag. If you find at least one record with a
> tag, you use the new scheme. If you find no records with a tag, you
> fall back to the old scheme. I think this will let people do
> everything they can do with the current tree walk, while being
> backward compatible. If you want a domain to be an org domain you put
> psd=n, if you want the tree walk to skip it and keep looking, you put
> psd=u, and if it's one of the 0.001% of domains that actually is a
> PSD, you put psd=y.
>
> We already added DiscoveryType to the aggregate report schema so we
> are OK there.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS: Whether we say people SHOULD NOT use SPF is a separate issue.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc