On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 6:59:08 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Hm... > > On Wed 23/Mar/2022 03:08:35 +0100 Douglas Foster wrote: > > During my ruminations last night, I gained some clarity around that > > question and wanted to highlight those conclusions. They simplify the > > alignment search significantly: > > > > - If the common substring is shorter than the Organizational Domain, then > > the names are not aligned and the candidate domain can be ignored. > > > > - Otherwise, if any candidate domain is a parent of (or equal to) the FROM > > domain, then and we have alignment and DMARC PASS. The secondary tree > > walk is not needed and no further evaluation is required. > > > > - If several candidate names are child domains of the FROM address, then > > only the shortest string needs to be evaluated with a secondary tree > > walk. If it is aligned, further evaluation is not required. If it is > > not aligned because of an organizational boundary, all other child > > domains are also excluded. > That and the deeper-than-5 optimization Doug posted on a separate message. > > > I know the document is already longish. However, collecting these > observations in an appendix may be helpful for developers, and maybe also > for general understanding of the intricacies involved in the tree walk, > including proper usage of the psd= flag.
I think we do need to add some additional clarity, which I plan to draft, but let's not go overboard. We are trying to describe a protocol, not a implementation specification. So far, in my experience, the extra code required to address short cuts like this is not justified by the improved 'efficiency'. I don't think these need to be in the document. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
