Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
The description of the tree walk should be clear enough. Yeah, /should/! The very fact that you yourself changed your mind about how it works, without going into the hassle of explaining your reasoning, ... Um, what? Scott and I went through some rounds of debugging to be sure the tree walk handled some obscure edge cases in a reasonable way. It was all on this very mailing list with examples. I think what we have now is OK but if you find something in the tree walk that is unclear or gets an unreasonable result, let us know, preferably with a concrete example. Having done that, I remind everyone for the umpteenth time that that the overwhelming majority of DMARC publishers and DMARC lookups will not see even one psd tag, much less more than one. While I could sort of see the use of an appendix describing the normal sorts of DMARC records that real mail operators are likely to publish and evaluate, I cannot see any benefit in wasting yet more time on arcane PSD edge cases. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
>> So John has confirmed that it is his intent to hide any information about >> private registries, because the >> private registries create complexity for his algorithm which he does not >> wish exposed. > > I submit that equating "this is not worth explaining as it's a corner case" > to "we should hide this detail > because I don't want anyone to know about it" is logically absurd as well as > baldly antagonistic. Agreed, and thanks, Murray. Doug, I've called out others for similar things, and you get it here: Please do not attribute bad intent to other participants, and please do not put things in terms of accusations or in ways that seem only to pour tar. A response such as, "John, I strongly disagree: I think it's really important to talk about at least some uncommon cases in order to make the situation clear. Discussing private registries in one of those important cases, as they create complexities for the algorithm that need to be shown," gives your technical opinion without being insulting or inflammatory. Barry ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
Speaking only as a participant: On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 4:47 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > So John has confirmed that it is his intent to hide any information about > private registries, because the private registries create complexity for > his algorithm which he does not wish exposed. > I submit that equating "this is not worth explaining as it's a corner case" to "we should hide this detail because I don't want anyone to know about it" is logically absurd as well as baldly antagonistic. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
On Thu 07/Jul/2022 22:32:56 +0200 John Levine wrote: The description of the tree walk should be clear enough. Yeah, /should/! The very fact that you yourself changed your mind about how it works, without going into the hassle of explaining your reasoning, proves that a more extensive walk though can assist developers in writing code that they can understand. Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
