Microsoft already does what is in the spec in Office 365 (which they specifically call out in the draft), so eventually Hotmail/Outlook.com will inherit it. But there are two differences:
1. Office 365 stamps "dmarc=bestguesspass", not "dmarc=pass". That makes it easier to distinguish in the logs 2. We do relaxed alignment, not strict alignment like it says in the spec Seems to work just fine. Also, not sure why there would be a discussion of rua and ruf. It's straightforward to interpolate the virtual DMARC record but how can you interpolate where to send a failure report? --Terry -----Original Message----- From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kouji Okada Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 2:19 AM To: dmarc <[email protected]> Cc: Kouji Okada <[email protected]> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] updating draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification Folks We are now working on revising draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification&data=02%7C01%7Ctzink%40microsoft.com%7C75cd5739368a40ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636259439620932357&sdata=lDAi6TjldCXogGZlQI1VpLfYOya3fjaJPRn8mtBgo1U%3D&reserved=0 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vdmarc.dmarc.jp%2F%3Fp%3D122&data=02%7C01%7Ctzink%40microsoft.com%7C75cd5739368a40ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636259439620942364&sdata=mVyeZ5EMI6cj1pvUXVYinZZi64JLqjE9v90iCUwiJ4M%3D&reserved=0 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmarc&data=02%7C01%7Ctzink%40microsoft.com%7C75cd5739368a40ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636259439620942364&sdata=AeIU1ls97f%2FktoX0ZuTufv1xDE0Q8%2FTAq%2BGpK8g9MvE%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
