Quick question I had while re-reading 8.6 - for this text below, might just be me on this one though.

"/It is therefore critical that domains that publish p=reject *MUST NOT* rely solely on SPF to secure a DMARC pass, and *MUST *apply valid DKIM signatures to their messages./"

Is this wording intentionally phrased in the context of DMARC on the assumption the reader has prior understanding or awareness of domain alignment requirements? I could see someone possibly taking this latter part out of context and wondering why a part of the RFC only told them to apply *any *valid DKIM signature, not one that specifically aligned with their domain.

- Mark Alley


On 1/2/2024 2:12 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
Revision 28 was due to expire this weekend, so I tweaked the language a bit in section 8.6 in response to the thread Francesca started here - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ink9cG3bono8O2Vif_ibiexad0A/

I expect rev 30 will have a few more changes.

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:09 PM <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote:

    Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-29.txt is now available.
    It is a work
    item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting &
    Conformance
    (DMARC) WG of the IETF.

       Title:   Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
    Conformance (DMARC)
       Authors: Todd M. Herr
                John Levine
       Name:    draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-29.txt
       Pages:   72
       Dates:   2024-01-02

    Abstract:

       This document describes the Domain-based Message Authentication,
       Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol.

       DMARC permits the owner of an email author's domain name to enable
       verification of the domain's use, to indicate the Domain Owner's or
       Public Suffix Operator's message handling preference regarding
    failed
       verification, and to request reports about the use of the domain
       name.  Mail receiving organizations can use this information when
       evaluating handling choices for incoming mail.

       This document obsoletes RFCs 7489 and 9091.

    The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/

    There is also an HTML version available at:
    https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-29.html

    A diff from the previous version is available at:
    https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-29

    Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
    rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


    _______________________________________________
    dmarc mailing list
    dmarc@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc



--
*Todd Herr *| Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem
*e:*todd.h...@valimail.com
*p:*703-220-4153
*m:*703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to