Folks We are now working on revising draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification
We are going to submit new version in early April. Authors are recognizing there are some open issues for the draft. 1. The authentication code. In the draft, we suggest to mark “dmarc=pass” in the authentication result when the virtual dmarc verifications have passed. We are going to keep it as it is. In 02, we are going to mention that e-mail operators can add comments to the authentication result field to indicate the “pass” is marked by the virtual verification. We are not going to define the format of the comments, but the example comment would be like below. ex) dmarc=pass(vdmarc=true) 2. vdmarc=fail problem When submitting 00 version of the draft, some people gave us the comments that it is harmful to mark “dmarc=fail” without explicit declaration of policy records. Our intention is to utilize the authentication results of “dmarc=pass” for the e-mails potentially can be treated as so. As Takehito posted to this ML, our evaluation on Japanese ISPs showed more than 20% of received email traffic can be treated as "dmarc=pass" with our verification. Thus our proposal helps to increase the number of legitimate e-mails on the receiver side. “Statistics about effects of “Virtual DMARC””: https://www.vdmarc.dmarc.jp/?p=122 We are going to emphasize the point in 02. 3. rua, ruf We do not define any default report destinations for the virtual verification. 4. Draft tile Currently our draft title is “DMARC verification without record definitions(dmarc-virtual-verification)”. Would you have any suggestions for the title? Any comments will be appreciated. Thank you, Kouji Okada _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
