On October 30, 2021 3:10:13 AM UTC, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 10/29/2021 7:56 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> I asked for some examples of bad things that the PSL would prevent or fix.
>> Don’t think we’ve seen any.
>
>
>1. I've reviewed what I believe are all of your relevant postings on
>this thread
On October 30, 2021 1:58:00 AM UTC, Douglas Foster
wrote:
>I enthusiastically endorse John's proposal for policy discovery. But as
>stated previously, I do not see that it provides a viable mechanism for
>eliminating the PSL as an alignment tool. To address that part of the
>problem, I submi
On 10/29/2021 7:56 PM, John Levine wrote:
I asked for some examples of bad things that the PSL would prevent or fix.
Don’t think we’ve seen any.
1. I've reviewed what I believe are all of your relevant postings on
this thread and managed to miss where you asked that. Please point to
the me
I asked for some examples of bad things that the PSL would prevent or fix.
Don’t think we’ve seen any.
Please consider the environment before reading this message.
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com
> On Oct 29, 2021, at 22:08, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2021 6:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> I
On 10/29/2021 6:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Dave Crocker said:
Except that Alessandro's original reference was in the service of
explaining why a mechanism DMARC relies on, for establishing
organization authority, should not necessarily rely on everyone's being
a good actor.
I t
I enthusiastically endorse John's proposal for policy discovery. But as
stated previously, I do not see that it provides a viable mechanism for
eliminating the PSL as an alignment tool. To address that part of the
problem, I submit my proposal for migrating from the publicsuffix.org list
to DNS
It appears that Dave Crocker said:
>Except that Alessandro's original reference was in the service of
>explaining why a mechanism DMARC relies on, for establishing
>organization authority, should not necessarily rely on everyone's being
>a good actor.
I take it you are agreeing that we should
On 10/29/2021 6:06 PM, John R Levine wrote:
an you explain what this line of argument has to do with DMARC? I'm
drawing a blank.
If it's that any TLD operator might at any time do something horrible,
even though they never have before, it seems to me that the only
reasonable option is to aba
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021, Dave Crocker wrote:
Every gTLD operator has a web of contracts with ICANN, and Verisign also
with the US government, which severely constrain what they can do with
their TLDs.
Yes, yes. All of them are well-behaved, following all the rules, and the
rules perfectly protec
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>Based on the longest true PSL entry being 4 labels, we could also just jump to
>the 5th and walk up from there. It would give every domain that currently has
>the ability to express a domain policy the ability to do so and bound the
>total number of look
On 10/29/2021 5:02 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Oh, please. That was the sitefinder fiasco which led to lawsuits
and convulsions at ICANN, and considerable contract revision.
Nothing like that will happen again for reasons I can explain
privately for anyone who cares.
Except that repetition of th
Oh, please. That was the sitefinder fiasco which led to lawsuits and
convulsions at ICANN, and considerable contract revision. Nothing like that will
happen again for reasons I can explain privately for anyone who cares.
Except that repetition of the same action is not what was being suggeste
On 10/29/2021 10:31 AM, John Levine wrote:
Oh, please. That was the sitefinder fiasco which led to lawsuits and
convulsions
at ICANN, and considerable contract revision. Nothing like that will happen
again for reasons I can explain privately for anyone who cares.
Except that repetition of th
On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:09:13 PM EDT John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >For a 'normal' domain/sub-domain like eml.example.com where the domain has
> >a DMARC policy, every single implementation approach gives the same
> >answer, so it doesn't matter. The challe
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>Verisign is not new to abusive behavior. About 20 years ago they used to
>reply
>with one of their servers' IP addresses to any query like
>www..com. ISC came out with the "root-delegation-only" hack
>to counter that.
Oh, please. That was the sitef
On Fri 29/Oct/2021 03:15:10 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On October 29, 2021 12:58:12 AM UTC, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
The key is to get the security and privacy considerations documented so
that ICANN and ccTLD operators are informed and can set their own ru
On Friday, October 29, 2021 7:06:18 AM EDT Douglas Foster wrote:
> PSL entries are imputed with four important characteristics:
> - name not valid for MAILFROM
> - name not valid for FROM
> - name not valid for DKIM
> - name not valid as an alignment point for mismatched names.
>
> For non-PSL nam
PSL entries are imputed with four important characteristics:
- name not valid for MAILFROM
- name not valid for FROM
- name not valid for DKIM
- name not valid as an alignment point for mismatched names.
For non-PSL names, the reverse is assumed by default - any name is valid
for any of these purp
18 matches
Mail list logo
