IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 16 July 2022 16:12 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 327FCC14F739 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 09:12:24 -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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=Aw0YQTZ+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=OmDIa0H2
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 f86a-8x2NWm8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 09:12:19 -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 BE3D5C14F730 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 09:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76949 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2022 16:12:16 -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=12c84.62d2e360.k2207; bh=3nbNfjYF3KTyEHhmbAqz/Z1WByzm98YmJmeAop6fqLo=; b=Aw0YQTZ+Fv4AUhaEVfeMl9J2WLf7nHLEqvCcM3zwdStotFmgT4yN758lTatZUdRMm8hZIK8NDfAljIX2b23VDRAjxiZ7PHWU3BmR9SYE5qHax8LH1Zb2RopbLPKqU1SIM7YU5fr27FE2lqQ2JASFb1ZhbchybqvitWYT+DYwy3lTtI4SjDAc0D9dyR/W91qvbBv0F+6z6KM8Rduq8uKcwryYNbmBp80Cb5o9sCR9Om3eXMqqKKw6NDmUeJqQ8KLyN5WwEv5Ou8bM5RlbAsHBIt/qmGM33Q5kVF9UNsoaPLiZagi9eDUweavNl4UvieHMAuqDyxzup+R2k6pM0tc5fQ==
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=12c84.62d2e360.k2207; bh=3nbNfjYF3KTyEHhmbAqz/Z1WByzm98YmJmeAop6fqLo=; b=OmDIa0H2AUoiqGBNNKT0e6Fw0JKcgC2wVZ/kytoMleMRepGrwqVyECJH0lXa3QLxILgUHXhmHuFOx0SpyQNM5PYPnHLj/nlcg81vHsUny1c2GRQ3H1G24B42N9rpJtAJL89KkNLHAhrZ91BK3yFMMXkGcrgiJVZ5aglLCCGxY2TUtf+Ql/pya82w0CjVIpgK8qERJ8h+rBjs6PnD5QhvIXki2esEfazyxrgNP6U0i/FhaERlE+Jqv4uxvT/M6ZZ8ATmpWkLqEV0eJN83ae3jXV6UMo+ZpXKoojWaJpA9ggS6oGbR6y4/gA6EgO9/+myRs6LHGIY8I7yMTQHdhwRCZA==
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; 16 Jul 2022 16:12:16 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 12430460B011; Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:12:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:12:14 -0400
Message-Id: <20220716161216.12430460B011@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: vesely@tana.it
In-Reply-To: <29ce4a52-d45b-f705-9219-817f5e46a5d4@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/qVHUryg7RvXpi7MbWHC6cwjABgA>
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: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 16:12:24 -0000

It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> said:
>>> No, it's not an accident.  We designed the tree walk based on our knowledge of the way people publish DMARC records.

>I don't understand this unwearying opposition irrespective of the 
>argument.  If you do a tree walk NOW (which is why I said currently) 
>you have exactly 0 probability to determine an abnormal PSD, since the 
>tag hasn't been assigned yet.

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.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email