For SPF, we had "best guess" [1], which we chose not to standardize at all because we didn't think it appropriate to break the opt-in nature of SPF. This concerns me a bit here, but I'm mostly writing to support the idea of distinguishing between some kind of guess and an actual DMARC result.
I think "dmarc=bestguesspass" is far superior to "dmarc=pass", since this is not a DMARC pass. I think "dmarcguess=pass" would be better since this isn't properly a DMARC check at all. Scott k [1] http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Best_guess_record On Friday, March 24, 2017 04:55:42 PM Terry Zink wrote: > 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%7C > 01%7Ctzink%40microsoft.com%7C75cd5739368a40ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f1 > 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636259439620932357&sdata=lDAi6TjldCXogGZlQI1V > pLfYOya3fjaJPRn8mtBgo1U%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%7C75cd5739368a40 > ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636259439620 > 942364&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.or > g%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmarc&data=02%7C01%7Ctzink%40microsoft.com%7C75cd57 > 39368a40ce682208d47296da95%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6362 > 59439620942364&sdata=AeIU1ls97f%2FktoX0ZuTufv1xDE0Q8%2FTAq%2BGpK8g9MvE%3D&re > served=0 _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
