Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree Walk Examples pull request

2022-07-17 Thread John R. Levine
I made a pull request from Scott's examples, lightly edited. Also added a few lines to the makefile to make a diff between the current and previous versions. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document

2022-07-17 Thread John Levine
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said: >> Indeed, and even so the tree walk gets the right answer nearly 100% of >> the time, right now. >> >> PSDs are rare, "abnormal" PSDs are even rarer. The PSD tag is in arcane nit. >> >> While I'm not opposed to the psd tags, I really wish people would

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree Walk Examples

2022-07-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 17, 2022 10:56:38 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:15:56 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> However, if you're coding the tree walk, d=; forces you to consider the >>> assumptions you need to put on the input domain. Namely, it must neither >>> be the root nor a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs aren't important, was mustard

2022-07-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 17, 2022 10:40:47 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:00:25 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 11:56:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On Sat 16/Jul/2022 17:34:24 +0200 John Levine wrote: It appears that Scott Kitterman said:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree Walk Examples

2022-07-17 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:15:56 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: However, if you're coding the tree walk, d=; forces you to consider the assumptions you need to put on the input domain. Namely, it must neither be the root nor a PSD. Right? No. It doesn't come up. In 4.8, the input to the tree walk

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs still aren't important, again, was what to document

2022-07-17 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:12:14 +0200 John Levine wrote: It appears that Alessandro Vesely said: No, it's not an accident. We designed the tree walk based on our knowledge of the way people publish DMARC records. I don't understand this unwearying opposition irrespective of the argument. If

Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs aren't important, was mustard

2022-07-17 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Sat 16/Jul/2022 18:00:25 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday, July 16, 2022 11:56:04 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Sat 16/Jul/2022 17:34:24 +0200 John Levine wrote: It appears that Scott Kitterman said: I think the proposed change is incorrect. To pick a real example, gov.uk

[dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Jul 17 06:00:04 2022

2022-07-17 Thread John Levine
Count| Bytes | Who ++--- 60 ( 100%) | 586343 ( 100%) | Total 15 (25.0%) | 161830 (27.6%) | Alessandro Vesely 13 (21.7%) | 98126 (16.7%) | Scott Kitterman 12 (20.0%) | 63755 (10.9%) | John Levine 8 (13.3%) | 131312 (22.4%) | Douglas Foster