Thank you, sir. That’s part of the reason to cautiously transition away from the PSL. It has the feel of a throwback to a time when people thought the number of total users would be in the hundreds or thousands. Wouldn’t a cautious transition alleviate your concerns? Not everyone, everywhere will pull the switch at midnight. On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:50 AM, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil, the list is attached. . I used "Z" in the PSD and NP columns to indicate "not specified". For the other columns, defaults have been inserted.
Since everybody has their own copy of the PSL, others may find minor variants of this data.
Doug Foster
> On Oct 13, 2023, at 3:59 AM, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The first step in my research has been to do DMARC policy lookups on the PSL domains About 400 of them have DMARC policies. A super-majority specify relaxed authentication without specifying a NP policy. This indicates that the policy was created before the PSD for DMARC spec. I conclude that these domains want to be treated as organizations, not PSOs, and tbe stop-last Tree Walk will enable what they have been wanting.
Doug, you’re saying there’s 400? That means anyone of us or, better, several of us could make calls to talk to a representative sample. We’d then greatly improve our knowledge of both the concerns and wants of this set of domain operators. Then you’d be in a better position to understand what they want and that, of course, can’t help but influence your decisions. The low numbers at this stage make getting the basic data much easier.
Neil
<PSL entries with DMARC policies.xlsx>
|
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
