Re: [dmarc-ietf] updating draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification

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:dmarc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kouji Okada
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 2:19 AM
> To: dmarc <dmarc@ietf.org>
> Cc: Kouji Okada <okd@lepidum.co.jp>
> 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
> dmarc@ietf.org
> 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
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc