Scott Instead of thinking one must choose between a locally consumed registry and a lookup service, why not both? In the land of DNSOP we put out RFC7706 which talks about running a copy of the root Nameservers locally to speed lookups. This seems to be so highly useful that we're just finished WGLC on 7706-bis.
So we could decide on doing a combinatory of #3 and #1, with the right mechanisms. Just a thought. Tim (lacking any hats today) On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 3:11 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
