slightly less problematic.
Doug Foster
From: Tim Wicinski [mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:04 PM
To: fost...@bayviewphysicians.com
Cc: IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
Doug
In looking for
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 5:32 PM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> On tree walk, I was working from John Levine's proposal, which assumes
> that a tree walk has to be distance limited for performance reasons. He
> tentatively proposed four levels. If you walk up the tree and find no
> DMARC entry, th
quot;
Sent: 11/21/20 8:05 PM
To: Doug Foster
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 5:02 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Douglas E. Foster
wrote:
- If unregistered
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 5:02 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Douglas E. Foster 40bayviewphysicians@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> - If unregistered domains are tolerated, PSD for DMARC helps address the
>> problem of a unauthorized domains underneath a public suf
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> - If unregistered domains are tolerated, PSD for DMARC helps address the
> problem of a unauthorized domains underneath a public suffix, such as "
> example.uk". But what DMARC policy will solve the problem of an invalid
> TLD, such as "
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 11:26 AM Douglas E. Foster <
fost...@bayviewphysicians.com> wrote:
> Does a transient outage report NXDOMAIN, or a different status?
>
Depends on the nature of the outage, I suppose. An unreachable nameserver
should typically result in a SERVFAIL, but I can imagine miscon
2 PM
To: Doug Foster
Cc: Doug Foster , IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 9:02 AM Douglas E. Foster
wrote:
Restating what we all know:
- The Internet is dependent on the reliable operation of the DNS name sy
Does a transient outage report NXDOMAIN, or a different status?
Original message
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
Date: 11/21/20 2:12 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Doug Foster
Cc: Doug Foster
, IETF DMARC WG
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Def
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 9:02 AM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> Restating what we all know:
> - The Internet is dependent on the reliable operation of the DNS name
> system.
> - The DNS name system is dependent on the reliable operation of the name
> registration processes.
> - The registrars are give
8:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
To return briefly to the muddy waters that I created. John is correct that
"mail enabled" is not useful for the RFC5322.From address, and my last note
expanded on reasons why that is correct.
Howe
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Doug Foster wrote:
>
> However, spoofing of non-existent subdomains is a potential problem for the
> RFC5321.MailFrom domain, which then becomes an attack vector for the
> RFC5322.From address as well. The problem exists because because SPF has
> no
> organization
: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chudow, Eric B CIV
NSA DSAW (USA)
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 6:29 AM
To: 'John Levine'; 'dmarc@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition
of NP
Thank you, John. I agree that it
s not appropriate.
Doug Foster
From: eric.b.chudow.civ=40mail@dmarc.ietf.org
Sent: 11/20/20 6:30 AM
To: 'John Levine' , "'dmarc@ietf.org'"
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
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
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:44 PM Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> How do I check a domain for presence or absence of A, , or MX records?
> I thought most domains were protected from enumeration, so one had to know
> a name to find out if it is defined
>
Do you mean what does the DNS question look l
ns were protected from enumeration, so one had to know
> a name to find out if it is defined
>
> DF
>
>
> --
> *From*: "Douglas E. Foster"
> *Sent*: 11/19/20 9:27 PM
> *To*: "IETF DMARC WG"
> *Subject*: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Se
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]." T
oster"
Sent: 11/19/20 9:27 PM
To: "IETF DMARC WG"
Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
Thank you for the pointer Eric.
Can someone explain why the chosen algorithm, which requires testing multiple
conditions, is preferable to a single que
From: Doug Foster
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:46 AM
To: 'IETF DMARC WG'
Cc: dmarc-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
I did not see a definition of a "non-existent domain" (the np policy). A
definition i
;
Cc: dmarc-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP
I did not see a definition of a “non-existent domain” (the np policy). A
definition is needed.
To my thinking, the obvious rule should be to query for a NS record for the
domain. If the re
I did not see a definition of a “non-existent domain” (the np policy). A
definition is needed.
To my thinking, the obvious rule should be to query for a NS record for the
domain. If the record exists, then the domain owner could create a DMARC
record for that domain, or could create a def
21 matches
Mail list logo
