Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt

Seth Blank <> Thu, 17 January 2019 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420D3130E94 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.042
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 fDsNznx3nmDz for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98188130E93 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y23so7092654oia.4 for <>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SXNNfrA3f05P/V1KMh8Tc68pz06Opu9MLvoCGvIFViU=; b=EL9KDB0Q8xDuNtieyoUjwwVV95qgY3U2QbACIrw2iKRCoX0eQaQqfHgRy73Wei0Kxq 0tFEa1w8cvilirQDJ10RHtfDPeSGSVm8xMwbqwACw14o2JgvxvVy9P0w9kifvL0A5GOz mkRynfWWKj8HEG6ypu8kytk6TuGYt64mkPK26V4rPaTmxYTVwneQyqqQs1GLVQt78Id0 9GcAdCGCBKf8BufwZh4w9gkSKs5K2bFtYN9wukmYhR32qIv/N6jxd7g0fNybmRNRuZKt Ut4knMbhkqqaZHRwopaAcbSEeDtB45xbc63RV2yrQfJLmw5j505DSvSPuDJ7GS+W5YKo ih/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=SXNNfrA3f05P/V1KMh8Tc68pz06Opu9MLvoCGvIFViU=; b=MWh0f4MbSXalshQYrVIoA25jpEe/sFeKD3y5mP9mV4BQufMy8nxqeZ5RQU2HD7Mbfn MDbzq/K3K5AiHqfqWoteUp2E+BA1+VZ8RWhnbmbX1iF+Gi7jZUNHmvg+kyEopEr2p2jv oIKiggRlfOi6QGMbzSfKetx2NIf8y+UgeGg5SaCEohYOLI0ICHfTLwjckX6DeYSkorbS 8B5Bq8yGv9afY2SkbaXprx6iKXuD4XT+ccQAjS6Jvv9zlt652PEww2rNnrgIn/GBSDBE MzPUtmIZDT7XVTDcDWa6V8w06JSsmYZUWbqby7j0k6C3xmFIdT9aediRfRxSk0y15ud/ WRug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukchjib84l1YdgTLFeRgq6VbZcJJqFGjXhP8R3HoDsQZj2+ff9iq cBZbHDN/MblRuXIoyicmVDR0WLWZWpxLYrMrB6+SqJIQlQs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5KseS5rQUMWI/hKkmUlktX93LzagqZvqtCycNPIWuj5uZcUR/00nkfAFA+HY6B6UnSUD4Mhq5XE4e0qFDQNIQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1918:: with SMTP id l24mr6523463oii.236.1547753150105; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> <20190117185019.16153200CDA113@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20190117185019.16153200CDA113@ary.qy>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:25:33 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6691d057fac5c44"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:25:55 -0000

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM John Levine <> wrote:

> I wonder if there's any way to get the PSL to tag vanity TLDs.

I believe a single list is the best long term solution. It just needs the
domain and two flags, one for if the domain is a public suffix, and the
other is if its a public suffix domain (per this draft).

For instance;

domain          | PS | PSD
---------------------------------           | true | false          | true | true
.brand           | false | true

This seems to adequately cover all uses cases described (with the
example being the state of everything currently on the PSL), is simple, and
in one place.

I think the primary question (before we go down the PSL/Mozilla rabbit
hole) is what the proper technical solution is - one list, multiple lists,
no list.

After clarity on that, then we can dig into how and where this thing lives.