Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-23.txt

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

You could surely arrange to send yourself such an email.  If you need a real domain that would be covered by an existing PSD record, virginia.gov is right there.

Scott K

On October 14, 2022 11:48:18 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Thu 13/Oct/2022 15:48:55 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
>> There is no report; this paragraph is all the report we have (and I think
>> it’s all we will get and all we need).
>
>
>Hm...  Indeed, I searched old mail logs and found no evidence that one of the domains (bank|gov|insurance|gov.uk|police.uk|mil|gov.in) was ever a target of an aggregate report from me.  However, I ascribe this lack of logs to the likely circumstance that I never received messages reportable to them, rather than hypothesizing that my implementation was wrong.
>
>
>Best
>Ale
>
>
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 5:49 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On Wed 12/Oct/2022 22:44:10 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
>>>> At Barry's request, I added a couple sentences to section 7.3 to talk about why
>>>> this document obsoletes RFC 9091.
>>> 
>>> This:
>>> 
>>>     The DNS Tree Walk also incorporates PSD policy discovery, which was
>>>     introduced in [RFC9091].  [RFC9091] was an Experimental RFC, and the
>>>     results of that experiment were that the RFC was not implemented as
>>>     written.  Instead, this document redefines the algorithm for PSD
>>>     policy discovery, and thus obsoletes [RFC9091].
>>> 
>>> I missed the report about the experiment results.  Any pointer?
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dmarc mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc