Scott, I have many problems with your response. Was it intended as an ad hominem? It certainly came across that way.
If the NP objective can be stated in a sentence or two, you should have done so, instead of telling me to read years of archive. An objective that cannot be explained tersely is not sufficiently defined. However, I do understand that your original case was to control misuse of unregistered organization domains. I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of why the PSD team believes that MX/A/AAAA is the optimal algorithm for that problem, since that information was not in your RFC. I am still waiting. If the topic had been thoroughly vetted in the committee, this should not have been a difficult request. Nonetheless, this WG is not re-documenting the PSD experiment, we are generalizing it to all DMARC policies. I consider NP to be the most important part of this document, because it is significant new functionality to protect recipients and name owners. But because we are adding it during the standards track phase, we have to get it right on the first try. The only way to get it right is to analyze it thoroughly, which I have been trying to do, with little cooperation, for about a year. Once we have the correct algorithm for the general case, we can return to the PSD case to determine if it requires special handling. My current opinion is that the optimal rule will work well for all cases. As you probably suspect, I think the PSD group messed up on the most important part of its tasking. Either prove me wrong or let me help you improve what you started. Doug Foster On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 11:40 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > > On December 15, 2021 4:16:13 AM UTC, Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >What does we mean for an RFC5322.From address to be “non-existent”? > > > >We have said that it is non-existent because it fails the MX/A/AAAA test, > >but we have not documented what that test represents. Perhaps it seemed > >obvious, but let's make it clear: > > > >A failed MX/A/AAAA test is a very reliable indicator that the From address > >does not have a mailbox, because the associated domain does not have a > mail > >server which accepts messages. “Does not exist” means that the message > >does not exist as a destination mailbox. > > > >But is that result information useful, and if so, how? What problem does > >it resolve? > > > >I estimate that 70% of the legitimate mail entering my organization is > >unidirectional – messages which do not expect a reply by email. > >Unidirectional traffic does not require an inbox. When we determine that > a > >message does not have an inbox, we determine that it is definitely part of > >the 70%. I don't find anything actionable in that information. > > > >The RFC5322.From identifier is an abstraction which represents a message > >stream from a single entity acting as author. Everything that the author > >mails can be done through agents, where the agent is the SMTP From > >address. A review of actual mail messages will show that legitimate > >messages come from domains that do not have a mail server. > > > >In the general case, an author account or domain exists simply because the > >domain owner (or PSD) authorizes someone or something to use that name. > >Our goal needs to be a test which identifies domain names which have never > >been authorized by the domain owner or PSD. We need a different test. > > None of that is at all related to why we added the np= tag. I'd suggest a > review of the WG archives might be useful. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
