I want to thank Yasutaka san for presenting the Virtual DMARC proposal.
I believe the situation he and his colleagues are addressing would
benefit from more attention.
The meeting materials at IETF do not seem to include Yasutaka san's
slides. If I didn't just miss it, would it be possible to share that
presentation?
Aside from changes to the "dmarc=" allowed values in
Authentication-Results: - and I think this echos a point made during the
session - the underlying issue seems to be the use of DMARC-style
alignment checks in the absence of a DMARC policy record.
That practice may be useful to the receiver's evaluation of SPF and DKIM
results. Perhaps that should be explored as a receiver/authenticator
best practice. It may be _very_ useful to capture these statistics to
make it clearer to domain-owners/senders that more current email traffic
would pass DMARC checks than they may presently realize. I would
definitely like to explore that further.
But DMARC is based on cooperation between domain-owner/sender and
authenticator/receiver. And it depends on the explicit
opt-in/request-for-treatment from the domain-owner, signaled by a public
DNS record, and the reporting mechanisms so that the domain-owner/sender
can correct errors in implementation of authentication measures.
Virtual DMARC seems to be discussing only what happens within the
authenticator/receiver, but perhaps I have missed this part. I look
forward to re-reading the proposal and slides with this in mind.
--Steve.
Steve Jones
DMARC.org, LinkedIn, crash.com, etc.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
