Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Steven M Jones <> Sun, 21 February 2021 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E263A12D8 for <>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:05:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLZcCpTMQjRm for <>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE973A12D4 for <>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/cci-colo-1.7) with ESMTPSA id 11LN5Y9C005011 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:05:42 GMT (envelope-from
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 11LN5Y9C005011
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201506-2k; t=1613948743; bh=zAahz7BzuAvT7feBHZNxsjvZbScG7XvkHJY0/QtRdJs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Acn7EQY65YKLyL07VE9Br6TE2HwTsdQcF5qolKLD0o8t4CiUN4u7EM7KX3M7BDYa/ LbGLMA7TsTtGmjrg/S/TIPr2/qj8OBCxbm6jUzpHxYFlwdQ9kPg5qI0Ja9O5F8uBrk /N+5aUh8MiRfPGFcB0oSscrzZLvGoZELr40lICIpI00FpEout+nHOttOdvrBuvLOzt Bmj+rAF42RO28vOgPL5bPwdnXOOdtPNY3xkfiLuMhdAUT63by3V4X07d2dUT3RauAj vS0ooymLsE6IKFeWZKoVau+imor2vZ+rNqjiUTVBhNMNhuRmZjt0V7wRqzCNlrvMHv GumyqzOG+SMpg==
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Steven M Jones <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:05:30 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 ( []); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:05:48 -0000

On 2/21/21 08:49, Chudow, Eric B CIV NSA DSAW (USA) wrote:
> I think it's getting better, but I wouldn't call them Internet Naming Authorities. Should we just call them higher-level entities?

There are proper names for these actors - there's no need to be even
more vague ...

> Also, while the biggest help that PSD DMARC would make is for non-existent organizational domains, it can also help with other domains that haven't expressed a DMARC policy, so the abstract shouldn't only discuss unregistered domains.

Except for the few cases where the registrar for a given TLD mandates
DMARC participation and/or certain policies, there should be no language
that sounds like /imposing/ DMARC on domains where the domain
owner/operator has not elected to do so. Loose language here will not be
received well.