But this is only for “org-domain” evaluation, the example from Doug was about
“adkim:s vs adkim:r”, but 4.8 speaks about “psd”. If at all if “example.com”
would have a “psd:y” entry than my first sentence would even be a necessity, as
there should be no alignment possible between a “domain” and
My unsuccessful attempt to implement to the specification has reminded me
of my past concerns.
Our document gives primacy to the Tree Walk, as if it will be used on every
>From domain, SPF domain, and DKIM domain. The Tree Walk algorithm is
explained in detail before any discussion of how it is
On Wed 13/Mar/2024 11:23:43 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote:
The reality is that the Tree Walk is an inefficient and unreliable way of
obtaining an answer, particularly because of the risk of DNS timeouts. As
a result, the Tree Walk should be avoided whenever possible. In fact, the
secondary tree
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:24 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My unsuccessful attempt to implement to the specification has reminded me
> of my past concerns.
>
> Our document gives primacy to the Tree Walk, as if it will be used on
> every From domain, SPF domain,
When SPF/DKIM domain is a parent of the From domain, result may be aligned
or unaligned, but Tree Walk is not needed.
"Not a child" was correct as stated. If the first Tree Walk determines
that sub1.example.com is the organization, then we are only interested in
SPF)DKIM domains that are in the s
