On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 8:04:00 PM EST Brandon Long wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:39 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise. > >> > >> Kurt also talked about reporting some findings. I'm embarrassed, I have > >> no > >> idea what I, as a receiver, should report. What data should I, and other > >> receivers collect? > > > > I was thinking of something along the line of what was assembled for RFC > > 6686. In this case it would be something like the quantity of messages > > which were assessed against the LPSD record and their disposition compared > > to the number of messages dispositioned at the org level. Something to > > answer Dave's concern about "too much additional work" for not enough > > benefit. > > Remind me again the the additional work is that might be too much? Isn't > it just another DNS lookup for the org domain -1... of which there are > maybe a couple thousand and easily cacheable? > > This seems way less than say the additional work for ARC.
It's slightly more. There's also a check to see if a LPSD (org -1) is a PSD DMARC participant. Exactly how to document that is the major unresolved question that we should evaluate experimentally. It might be one of three things: 1. A registry that is occasionally updated and consumed locally. 2. A DNS RBL type service lookup. 3. An exended PSL. Options 2 and 3 both have a second additional lookup. Personally, I like option 1, but there's no consensus about this. There are working versions of all three available from psddmarc.org for testing. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
