On Sunday, January 30, 2022 7:34:35 AM EST Alessandro Vesely wrote: > (This message is not going to be accepted by the IETF today, so I CC John > too) > On Sun 30/Jan/2022 05:25:30 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> 3. The role of the function that uses the PSD and the role of the > >>> function that does a tree walk are identical. Since you apparently feel > >>> otherwise, please explain. > >> > >> A PSD is potentially useful for DMARC policy determination if no policy > >> exists for the exact domain or the organizational domain. It is not > >> useful for evaluating relaxed alignment. Only the organizational domain > >> can be used for that. So I do not think you are correct. > > > > The RFC 9091 does not contain the word 'relaxed', so I'm curious about > > the > > basis for your assertion of the limitation. > > Let me ask if the following scenario is possible at all: > > .BANK admins decide to setup a DKIM signing service for .bank domains. They > register dkim.bank, and accept and relay messages originating from their > customers, signing them with d=dkim.bank. (Compare to onmicrosoft.com?) > > They may consider that a tangible way to protect .bank domains. > > Will that work to validate, say, mail From: [email protected]?
It's not possible. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
