Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lookup

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 24 November 2020 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 9E5E03A10DF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pGiSeL68RTV7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CF113A10DC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id y7so18759164pfq.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=seFLp5JxenbBzENuGE6kDYNZEy+A0125LxXmWA33g/M=; b=fDGqiMW2SeizdN+7U83E4uOPb2kvcQsc10cddwPKhBo5iBtale/N2vGGIXQdpGo8YD 6fBrvz1BEj1cUlwvYqRqALnFJx/PGknjvGyb9j3Uxi0J4HTPjNucK7c42w+3AUn/d4YE 7aYBPLq61m7JxrZEuY2c7D/D9qOj+Ec6MhbkNqgOeVu7YQrkOgKXstAN9TKWQBtrgIrS vBeeWwhHmJFRxq9ynFdh285S8lOYfCY4b7AM0xnJuPI/XtSmufQWVHGEqySYDPFapezj 2mZMxFuJWoEG5PFai7Nw7I83EZr5GSCbdKuFvXIFf7c9EDwE5OSqeB/NyqPV1BHVAsED fC1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=seFLp5JxenbBzENuGE6kDYNZEy+A0125LxXmWA33g/M=; b=e+jr4jVBm/VhQYl+L9kf3/LXRiw8RpuH+FvFharCOY5rRv3acuSnO+lzi85L3YZAhz mAP2iJDXBn6xDYWHxk6B0aH5Rm631gJYLAaRqaVwuHAQ6ZN/QgwxxqhMh8xvB1a2JQeI rqeiScjJzzY2UrlpFbPit0Ybsx8Bt9oc69TW5FNp63J5FKQXouFFPSIR28WTHS+xr9eT fcOt8/W+x4oGDcdtDETJeRYZ068KI3Zwd6uwiLnKaYde2Iha/FanGkmvgbmAQoLNokaU M4ugpw9+g8msNsOnkTCHCsXXV+PpRXAioYIziEJtLREYLxMoo20EMAuqkO41e0pKJ0rU Qazg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FuF4b3eONEW1SnH5qgAAby1qv/RjnPd94LnGhxIdehkBWAuSV WO5BaFdiY7u6OgyvwMF5mg23mlKtFHI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRqnTZ7mWJPrkW4kaTKJ2apV9iaoS/P3n2x2vQ3T3vxFgR1eDFoBL88ou/9jSfgZ5R/wL5Fg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:8d8:: with SMTP id ds24mr5312088pjb.5.1606230944671; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.62.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 23sm13755972pgs.19.2020.11.24.07.15.43 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:44 -0800 (PST)
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <20201123213846.EB14127C8160@ary.qy> <efa0117e-5b17-800d-820d-b5d2413c6075@tana.it> <CAMSGcLBimU5NSBnxDEfSLnBkjhosrxd8_7BaTfA-A5bQyrTe1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29d3b145-1652-8b62-5eb2-74993e95eb45@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:15:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMSGcLBimU5NSBnxDEfSLnBkjhosrxd8_7BaTfA-A5bQyrTe1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xYduHdS9FboMrJz21h4ACmINSX0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Doing a tree walk rather than PSL lookup
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:15:47 -0000

On 11/24/2020 7:00 AM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> I will ask why the recipient system should look up anything but the 
> dmarc record for the specific domain in the Header From. 


Hmmm.  Unless I've missed it, the DMARC spec does not explain the reason 
for needing the Organizational Domain.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
dcrocker@gmail.com
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crocker2@redcross.org