On 7/5/12 2:54 PM, "Chris Lamont Mankowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Before I start, I'll say I've read most (90%) of the archives ;). The >following is a proposal to create a second identifier within DMARC, it >is not an attempt to become a FUSSP. It's only a way for an ADMD to >have more granular control over email messages. > >The purpose is to allow consistent administrative control over >authorized messages that have partial alignment. > >Given that: > > * Whitelisting mailing lists is really the only way to get DMARC to >work with messages forwarded by lists. > > * The presence of the DMARC record (and is anything other than >p=monitor), overrides ADSP and SPF-all > > * The sender who is interested in this proposal likely knows all >their sending MTAs (therefore is SPF [hyphen] -all candidate), but at >the same time that user doesn¹t know all the IPs for mailing lists >users send to (therefore a SPF [tilde] ~all candidate) > > * The DMARC "p" parameter, as currently defined, requires alignment >of *BOTH* SPF and DKIM. Therefore any policy defined is really only >suitable to transactional emails No, only one needs to be aligned and pass for dmarc to pass. > > >Recent discussion on this mailing list has focused on three types of >messages that relate to DMARC: > > 1) Full Alignment: Transactional email, that is handled by the >current version of the draft. > > 2) Partial Alignment: SPF pass DKIM Pass where SPF might fail if a >mailing list is used. Partial alignment as you define it and understand it, is handled by the draft. _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
