In article <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> you write: >My understanding is that, since, as you say, PSOs (like .bank) have a pre- >existing relationship with their registrants, they don't need PSD DMARC to >audit their registrant's policies. For an entity like that, it offers the >chance to get feedback on other, presumably non-existent, domains so as to >better understand abuse patterns within the PSD they manage. It also gives >them a mechanism to express a reject policy for those domains, which does not >currently exist. This may help improve rejection of cousin domains by >receivers. > >For single entity PSDs, like for a very large Internet company that is, >conveniently not named after a large South American rain forest (so they can >get it registered), it offers other advantages. In cases like this, the PSD >operates like an organizational domain except for the fact that in the current >DMARC instantiation, their record won't work for subdomains. PSD DMARC would >enable '.example' to publish a single record for all lower level entries in >the zone.
That all seems reasonable but it still feels like a lot of mechanism for marginial benefit, particularly since we have no clue who's going to run it if we can't foist it off on Mozilla. I wonder if there's any way to get the PSL to tag vanity TLDs. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
