Hi, > DKIM has opt-in nature.
If opt-in means that DMARC record exists, our proposal is to change this opt-in nature because, as Shoko mentioned, virtual DMARC only focuses on the case which is obviously determined PASS. No one will not be in troubled, so I think we can modify about that. If not, I would like to know the specific situation. > Receivers can work this kind of operations using logs as they like. Yes, receivers can do by themselves if they do not care about the compliance with RFC7489. It specifies that the receiver adds dmarc=none in case there is no DMARC record, while dmarc=pass will be added if DMARC record exists. So I think we should discuss this contradiction. ---From RFC7489-- 11.2. Authentication-Results Result Registry Update IANA has added the following in the "Email Authentication Result Names" registry: Code: none Existing/New Code: existing Defined: [AUTH-RESULTS] Auth Method: dmarc (added) Meaning: No DMARC policy record was published for the aligned identifier, or no aligned identifier could be extracted. ---- > DMARC is composed by policy and reporting, but Virtual DMARC does not have > reporting. Is it acceptable to introduce the new AR code, such as dmarc=SoftPass, and add it if no reporting policy is published ? With this new code, one can distinguish DMARC with reporting from DMARC without reporting. # In the current I-D, it specifies as PASS. To summarize, 1. Whether DMARC always requires opt-in 2. Whether dmarc=none is appropriate for the case where there is no DMARC record 3. Whether reporting is mandatory for DMARC Best regards, --Takehito Akagiri ----- 元のメッセージ ----- 差出人: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" <genki.yasut...@rakuten.com> 宛先: "Shoko YONEZAWA" <yonez...@lepidum.co.jp>, dmarc@ietf.org Cc: "Yasutaka, Genki | Dkim | OPS" <genki.yasut...@rakuten.com> 送信済み: 2018年4月26日, 木曜日 午後 6:49:46 件名: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 My understanding is that we have received some comments so far against Virtual DMARC. The main comments are as follows: - DKIM has opt-in nature. - DMARC is composed by policy and reporting, but Virtual DMARC does not have reporting. - Receivers can work this kind of operations using logs as they like. Regards, Genki --- Genki YASUTAKA Rakuten, Inc. Mail: genki.yasut...@rakuten.com -----Original Message----- From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shoko YONEZAWA Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:38 PM To: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Request] Presentation in IETF101 My opinion is that there seems no trouble in the case that the receiver issues dmarc=pass to the mail, whose domain has no DMARC record, and which is determined dmarc=pass even if DMARC record exists. In such case, dmarc=pass will be issued for any DMARC record where "strict" decision policy is set. Shoko On 2018/04/18 0:59, Dave Crocker wrote: > +1, for all of the below. > > > d/ > > On 4/17/2018 8:41 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: >> >>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 11:07 PM, Kazunori ANDO <a...@bbsec.co.jp> wrote: >>> >>> I think "virtual DMARC" is out of DMARC scope, because it's a purely >>> internal policy decision. >> >> +1 for the (not entirely unreasonable, but entirely internal) >> algorithm used, -1 for the terminology. >> >> Where it's in scope is that it's using the term DMARC for something >> that is really not DMARC and as part of that it seems to suggest >> squatting on the dmarc= namespace in Authentication-Results. >> >> On 2018/03/20 6:17, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> Fundamentally, both SPF "Best Guess" and "Virtual DMARC" destroy the >>> opt-in nature of SPF and DMARC and should be considered harmful. >> >> +1 >> >> Again, please don't do this. >> >> Cheers, >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > > -- Shoko YONEZAWA Lepidum Co. Ltd. yonez...@lepidum.co.jp TEL: +81-3-6276-5103 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc