(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: acco...@havenbank.bank?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
