Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 12, 2023 9:51:14 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Wed 12/Apr/2023 10:35:06 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> On April 12, 2023 7:27:12 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On Fri 07/Apr/2023 00:03:49 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessand

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Wed 12/Apr/2023 10:35:06 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 12, 2023 7:27:12 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Fri 07/Apr/2023 00:03:49 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: I don'

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 12, 2023 7:27:12 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Fri 07/Apr/2023 00:03:49 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongl

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-12 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Fri 07/Apr/2023 00:03:49 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-08 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 9:49:24 AM EDT John Levine wrote: > It appears that Seth Blank said: > >So how do we handle this? What’s the worst case? Looking at the above > >example, the longest “complex org” would be 5 labels long. I think we’ve > >already agreed, backed by data from the PSL, that

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-08 Thread John Levine
It appears that Seth Blank said: >So how do we handle this? What’s the worst case? Looking at the above >example, the longest “complex org” would be 5 labels long. I think we’ve >already agreed, backed by data from the PSL, that the longest PSD would be >4 labels long. ... >To be clear, due to t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 6, 2023 5:51:50 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: >> I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is >> insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to cover >> all real world examples, bu

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-06 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Thu 06/Apr/2023 00:54:15 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: I don't feel strongly about N=10, but I do feel strongly that N=5 is insufficient. My gut feel is that 6 or 7 is likely more than enough to cover all real world examples, but it's a gut feel only and not backed by data. IMHO we could rewrite

[dmarc-ietf] Tree walk max depth concern and impact on reporting for domain owners working as expected

2023-04-05 Thread Seth Blank
I believe there’s a critical use case we missed with the tree walk, specifically around policy and reporting discovery, not determining organizational domain alignment. One of the reasons we discussed a tree walk for DMARC bis in the first case, was a specific problem with larger more complicated