On Thursday, May 07, 2015 06:03:22 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> On 5/7/2015 5:09 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]
> > 
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >     I think it's wrong to describe that as a DMARC result.  For DMARC
> >     as specified, that's a fail.
> > 
> > More precisely, for both DKIM and DMARC it's a fail.  For
> > DKIM+ATPS-04, it's a pass, but DMARC doesn't pay attention to that.
> 
> Now we are getting into definition and software engineering.
> 
> DMARC result is a PASS when it is an extension, and in this case, it
> is an extension, and it is noted as an extension:
> 
>     dmarc=pass policy=none author.d=isdg.net signer.d=ietf.org (atps
> signer);
> 
> In other words, does the AUTH-RES protocol allow it itself to be
> extended, it is flexible enough?   If not, then AUTH-RES will need to
> be updated again.

A-R is certainly extensible, but there are IANA registries that need to be 
updated.

RFC 7489 defines DMARC.  In fact, if you look at the registry [1], it points to 
RFC 7489 for the definition of how to use A-R for DMARC.  If you are doing 
something different than that, you're doing it wrong.  Call it something else 
and a comment isn't sufficient.  An A-R header field should be able to be 
automatically processed without reading the comments.

Neither author.d nor signer.d are not defined.  Given the use of unknown 
properties with a known method, I think any implementation might reasonably 
ignore this entire result.

I think this should be registered (if it merits continued development and 
deployment) as its own method.  Then you might have something like:

dmarc-atps=pass header.from=isdg.net signer.d=ietf.org
dmarc=fail header.from=isdg.net

Consumers can then decide if they care about dmarc-atps without having to 
interpret a new authentication method's results if they don't.

Scott K

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to