It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >IMHO, we shouldn't throw away the PSL. Most importantly, we should stick to >the concept of Organizational Domain. We can give an abstract definition of >the latter in terms of affiliation of some kind. Then the spec can leave it >to >developers to decide how to find it: tree-walk, PSL, dbound or whatever thing >like it will eventually come about, or even a mix of those. That way, code >using the PSL wouldn't be obsoleted. For new code, some configuration stuff >to >skip useless queries to _dmarc.com would be useful anyway.
The problem with that approach is that different people evaluating the same message will get different answers, unless you carefully figure out every possible way one might look for an organizational domain and be sure that you publish whatever every option needs. When we're writing standards, options are bad since more options mean more bugs and more ways not to interoperate. Pick one method and tell people to use it. I can't get too worried about the query to _dmarc.com. For one thing, for the stuff Scott is doing, while _dmarc.com is unlikely to exist, _dmarc.bank is on the roadmap. For another, in 99.99% of cases the _dmarc.com query will be answered from a local cache so it's fast and cheap. The PSL is over 200K and has over 9000 entries, so you can do a lot of local DNS queries in the time it takes to read and parse the PSL. I think the tree walk is likely to be at least as fast, maybe faster than using the PSL. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
