Doug
In looking for domain presence most folks will look at the domain itself.
There are a few web tools to enumerate
such as https://dnschecker.org/
Some examples
https://dnschecker.org/#MX/dmarc.org
https://dnschecker.org/#TXT/dmarc.org
https://dnschecker.org/#TXT/_dmarc.dmarc.org
There are
In article
<553d43c8d961c14bb27c614ac48fc03128116...@umechpa7d.easf.csd.disa.mil> you
write:
>Section 2.7. defines a non-existent domain as "a domain for which there is an
>NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, , and MX
>records. This is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020]."
Thank you for the pointer Eric.
Can someone explain why the chosen algorithm, which requires testing multiple
conditions, is preferable to a single query for a name server record?
Minimizing DNS traffic has been part of our recent discussion, and minimizing
software complexity is always a
This thread hasn't generated any discussion or momentum yet, and I know
that's not because y'all have found the proposed text for the Abstract and
Introduction to be acceptable, so I'm going to add the text to this thread
and see where the discussion leads.
For domains and organizational domains that have DMARC policies, then there is
no difference. For ones that don't, there is only one extra check and I think
that often it will be cached to minimize the actual lookups needed in practice.
Thanks,
Eric Chudow
DoD Cybersecurity Mitigations
From:
Section 2.7. defines a non-existent domain as "a domain for which there is an
NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, , and MX records. This is a broader
definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020]." This should be sufficient for
determining that the domain is not intended to be used and
PSD for DMARC specifies moving up one additional layer of the DNS tree to
look for the PSD policy, but it has the effect of adding DMARC policies to
all levels of participating public suffixes.How do we judge whether this
workload will be acceptable or not if widely implemented?
I ask
All
I've uploaded the minutes into the datatracker. Please take a look to make
sure I captured everyone's comments correctly, and let us know updates.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-dmarc-00
thanks
tim
(for Alexey/Seth)
# DMARC (Domain-based Message
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:39 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 18/11/2020 22:33, John R Levine wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2020 12:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> so I encourage the group to limit the debate to the existing Org/PSL
> >>> kludge and a tree walk.
> >>
> >> "and a tree walk" is not a minor
On 18/11/2020 22:33, John R Levine wrote:
On 11/18/2020 12:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
so I encourage the group to limit the debate to the existing Org/PSL
kludge and a tree walk.
"and a tree walk" is not a minor 'and'. neither conceptually nor
operationally. assurances to the contrary
10 matches
Mail list logo
