On Wed 06/Apr/2022 00:44:50 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 1:39:35 PM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 04/Apr/2022 15:14:07 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday, April 3, 2022 12:15:23 PM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 21/Mar/2022 23:02:03 +0100 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On March 21, 2022 5:42:42 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
According to the definition, two identical domains having psd=y
are in strict alignment but not in relaxed alignment, which is
somewhat counterintuitive.
Actually, no:
"If this process does not determine the Organizational Domain, then
the initial target domain is the Organizational Domain."
This text in DMARCbis06 addresses that case.
While that's true, it could be possible to revise the comparison
process so as to account for identical domains. In that case, we
could avoid to call Organizational Domain one with no DMARC record.
I thought I had covered this already in Section 4.8. I'll add it to the
list in the note.
Yeah, the text you wrote Sunday night looks better. I'd say:
If this process does not determine the Organizational Domain, then
there is no Organizational Domain.
That requires rewording the definitions of relaxed alignment.
(Besides, we have too many definitions of alignment.)
So far, I don't think we've messed with those definitions. I'd prefer not to
change them.
The point is to not have conflicting definitions. It can be acceptable that
the algorithm to determine the org domain finds none, if there is no org
domain. Currently, the org domain found by the algorithm is not necessarily
PSD + 1. So, it is not what we defined to be the org domain. Isn't this
messed up?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
