On Sun 31/Mar/2024 22:27:21 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:
I’m saying, as an individual, that there was a thread where we discussed a new
N for the tree walk. There was appetite, but no new N was settled on.
Maybe we just need to leave some leeway to implementers. Another doubt when
going to higher Ns is why not explore a bit around the local domain before
jumping near the root. I mean, for example, for N=6 one could lookup:
_dmarc.a.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.e.mail.example.com
_dmarc.mail.example.com
_dmarc.example.com
_dmarc.com
I know the result has to be the same for all, and it will. The limiting N is
a countermeasure against possible abuses, which are not the core cases.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
