What can one find continuing the walk after psd=y?
I have looked at every domain in the PSL that publishes a DMARC record and
other than the three that are in Scott's PSD list, what I found was
totally random. Some looked reasonable, some looked broken. In practice
I think the details are
(as participant)
Yes, that's clearly a broken implementation.
I imagine the DMARC document could say it relies on proper implementations
of 8020, but improper ones are known to be in the wild, and results are
unpredictable when these are encountered. Given the IETF is a standards
organization,
I agree that NXDOMAIN is the correct test to use for the NP policy, and as
close as we can get to perfection.
As for the reference to RFC 8020, whether NXDOMAIN does or does not exclude
subdomains, the effect on our specification is small. But it does seem
important to not repeat information
On June 28, 2022 6:02:54 PM UTC, Todd Herr
wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:36 PM Douglas Foster <
>dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My testing was done more than a year ago. My recollection is that I
>> discovered it based on something in the wild, and then confirmed it
This rev was created from the pull request John Levine submitted and
referenced in the thread "Final, I hope, tweaks to the tree walk"
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:13 PM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting
& Conformance WG of the IETF.
Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
Conformance (DMARC)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:36 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My testing was done more than a year ago. My recollection is that I
> discovered it based on something in the wild, and then confirmed it with a
> locally-configured experiment. This time I am
On June 28, 2022 4:33:15 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>On Mon 27/Jun/2022 15:54:51 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
>>> Please recall what you said in April:
>>>
>>> How about if we say that if the initial domain has psd=y, that's the org
>>> domain and you don't look anywhere else. That
On Mon 27/Jun/2022 15:54:51 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
Please recall what you said in April:
How about if we say that if the initial domain has psd=y, that's the org
domain and you don't look anywhere else. That is easy to explain and I
don't think we are likely to find anything that
Here is another example:
> 179.0.71.28.plusnetprovedor.net.br
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:179.0.71.28.plusnetprovedor.net.br
Address: 179.0.71.28
> 0.71.28.plusnetprovedor.net.br
0.71.28.plusnetprovedor.net.br: Non-existent domain
> 71.28.plusnetprovedor.net.br
10 matches
Mail list logo
