Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

In article you write: >On Tue 24/Nov/2020 13:52:43 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote: >> I had one spam message that had 13 parts. It included both "_mta-sts" and >> "mta-sts" in there, as well as >"mail" nine times. The last two parts were the org domain. > >If the message happened to authenticate, ne

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

On Tue 24/Nov/2020 13:52:43 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote: I had one spam message that had 13 parts. It included both "_mta-sts" and "mta-sts" in there, as well as "mail" nine times. The last two parts were the org domain. If the message happened to authenticate, negative reputation is better a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

mil > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft- > ietf-dmarc-psd > > In article > <553d43c8d961c14bb27c614ac48fc0312811f...@umechpa7d.easf.csd.dis > a.mil> you write: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >Even for .mil, the vast majority

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

In article <553d43c8d961c14bb27c614ac48fc0312811f...@umechpa7d.easf.csd.disa.mil> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Even for .mil, the vast majority of email domains are fairly short with four >or fewer labels. Most of the other ones tend to be >individual servers that send automatic performance emails

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

- > *From:* Laura Atkins [la...@wordtothewise.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 8:19 AM > *To:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Cc:* IETF DMARC WG > *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for &

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

DoD Cybersecurity Mitigations From: Laura Atkins [la...@wordtothewise.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8:19 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd On 22 Nov 2020

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

My longest addresses are from SalesForce.com, with 6 segments. Relatively small dataset. From: Laura Atkins Sent: 11/23/20 8:19 AM To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

> On 22 Nov 2020, at 06:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 6:23 PM John Levine > wrote: > It is my impression that most real From: domains are pretty short. I > don't think I've ever seen one more than four labels long that wasn't > deliberately

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 6:23 PM John Levine wrote: > It is my impression that most real From: domains are pretty short. I > don't think I've ever seen one more than four labels long that wasn't > deliberately contrived. Anyone got data on that? > I'd bet there are some in .gov or .mil, especiall

Re: [dmarc-ietf] tree walk and Org and PSD, Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

In article you write: >Someone in DNSOP, I think, proposed doing the tree walk in the other >direction. Turns out that won't work because here's what you'd be checking: > _dmarc.paypal.com > _dmarc.baz.paypal.com > _dmarc.bar.baz.paypal.com > _dmarc.foo.bar.baz.paypal.com You can have a NXDOMA