Scott asked for my list, so it is attached. I walked up the tree from the private registries, then did a DNS lookup for a DMARC entry. Consequently, the list shows the domains with DMARC policies, at whatever level, rather than the PSL entry itself.
Doug On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:00 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2022 10:14:37 PM EDT Douglas Foster wrote: > > Concern 1 > > Of the several thousand private registry domains listed in the PSL, 45 > have > > DMARC policies at or above the registry point. 40 of these 45 specify > > relaxed alignment for both DKIM and SPF. Upon activation of the tree > walk, > > these policies will be treated as organizational domains to any private > > registry clients that have not published their own psd=y policy. > Because > > of relaxed alignment, these private registry clients will be able to > > impersonate their siblings and parents and produce a DMARC result of > PASS. > > Please provide your list of ones you think might be problematic. > > > Concern 2 > > Since the longest current PSL entry has 5 segments, the longest > > organizational domain is 6 segments. The "jump to 5" logic needs to be > > changed to "jump to 6". > > What PSL entries that are 5 long are you worried about? When we looked at > this before, 5 seemed sufficient. Changing the number, now, isn't a big > deal. > > > Concern 3 > > The "psd=u" language is inconsistent. Which is true? > > "This token indicates that this policy is not an organizational domain,, > > the organizational domain is above this point" > > or > > "This token indicates no usable information, proceed with the heuristic > to > > determine if this policy is the organizational domain" > > It should be the latter. If we're inconsistent, please propose corrected > text. > > Scott K > > > Doug Foster > > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 4:54 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > I've finished going through this and also updated authheaders [1] to > > > match. It > > > now has a script called dmarc-policy-find which you can used to > determine > > > the > > > DMARC policy to be applied for a domain. You can use RFC 7489, RFC > 7489 + > > > RFC > > > 9091, and DMARCbis-07. > > > > > > It does currently cheat and assume psd=y is in the records for domains > on > > > the > > > PSD DMARC registry list, since no one has actually published that yet. > > > > > > Scott K > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/ValiMail/authentication-headers (also on pypi) > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 12:27:04 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > > I believe it does. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Scott K > > > > > > > > On April 6, 2022 2:53:59 PM UTC, Todd Herr > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >I believe this rev has the proposed text that was submitted in > various > > > > >messages in the thread titled "*5.5.4. Publish a DMARC Policy for > the > > > > >Author Domain - dmarcbis-06"* > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > > > >> directories. > > > > >> This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message > Authentication, > > > > >> Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > > > >> > > > > >> Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, > > > > > > Reporting, > > > > > > > >> and Conformance (DMARC) > > > > >> > > > > >> Authors : Todd M. Herr > > > > >> > > > > >> John Levine > > > > >> > > > > >> Filename : draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.txt > > > > >> Pages : 62 > > > > >> Date : 2022-04-06 > > > > >> > > > > >> Abstract: > > > > >> This document describes the Domain-based Message > Authentication, > > > > >> Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol. > > > > >> > > > > >> DMARC permits the owner of an email author's domain name to > enable > > > > >> verification of the domain's use, to indicate the Domain > Owner's > > > > >> or > > > > >> Public Suffix Operator's message handling preference regarding > > > > > > failed > > > > > > > >> verification, and to request reports about use of the domain > name. > > > > >> Mail receiving organizations can use this information when > > > > > > evaluating > > > > > > > >> handling choices for incoming mail. > > > > >> > > > > >> This document obsoletes RFC 7489. > > > > >> > > > > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > > > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/ > > > > >> > > > > >> There is also an HTML version available at: > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07.html > > > > >> > > > > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-07 > > > > >> > > > > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org: > > > > >> :internet-drafts > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> dmarc mailing list > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > dmarc mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dmarc mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_dmarc.0emm.com,v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.adobeaemcloud.com,v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1 _dmarc.amazonaws.com.cn,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.appspot.com,v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.bytemark.co.uk,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.cloudapps.digital,"v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:[email protected],[email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected],[email protected]"; _dmarc.cloudplatform.fi,v=DMARC1; p=none _dmarc.ddnss.de,v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; ri=1; adkim=r; aspf=s _dmarc.dnstrace.pro,v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; _dmarc.eu.org,v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=10;rua=mailto:[email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.fastly.net,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.fedoraproject.org,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=0 _dmarc.funkfeuer.at,v=DMARC1; p=none _dmarc.gateway.dev,v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.gov.scot,v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;fo=1;rua=mailto:[email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.gov.uk,v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;np=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;fo=1;rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.hosteur.com,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.interhostsolutions.be,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1:d:s _dmarc.jelastic.com,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.lcl.dev,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; ri=3600; _dmarc.lclstage.dev,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; ri=3600; _dmarc.linode.com,v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.magentosite.cloud,v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1 _dmarc.massivegrid.com,v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;ri=86400;rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.my.id,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:[email protected]; _dmarc.ovh.net,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; rf=afrf; pct=100; _dmarc.panel.gg,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; sp=none; aspf=r; _dmarc.platform.sh,"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;rua=mailto:[email protected],mailto:[email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected],mailto:[email protected];fo=1"; _dmarc.prgmr.com,v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.pstmn.io,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; _dmarc.pythonanywhere.com,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.quipelements.com,v=DMARC1;p=reject _dmarc.render.com,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; sp=none; aspf=r; _dmarc.rit.edu,v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; adkim=r; aspf=r; pct=100; _dmarc.run.app,v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.scaleforce.net,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; sp=quarantine _dmarc.stdlib.com,v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected] _dmarc.stg.dev,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; ri=3600; _dmarc.stgstage.dev,v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; fo=1; ri=3600; _dmarc.transurl.be,v=DMARC1; p=reject; _dmarc.transurl.eu,v=DMARC1; p=reject; _dmarc.transurl.nl,v=DMARC1; p=reject; _dmarc.unispace.io,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; _dmarc.virtualcloud.com.br,v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; ruf=mailto:[email protected]; rf=afrf; sp=none; fo=0:1:d:s; pct=100; ri=86400; aspf=s _dmarc.wafaicloud.com,v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;rua=mailto:[email protected];ruf=mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
