Re: [dmarc-ietf] Sender-supplied decision matrix for passing DMARC

This rings to me like something that would look like the simple/relaxed
alignment option currently in DMARC.  "Require aligned DKIM" being
something along the lines of "rdkim=y; rspf=n;" with the
not-included/default value being "n."
If you agree that adding it is simple enough, the real question is what
value does this really add to DMARC and/or will it improve DMARC adoption?
Personally, I think it would be generally welcomed among senders who like
really granular control over their authentication or who don't fully
understand DMARC's "defaults" (for example, senders who use "p=reject;
pct=100;").

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:10 PM Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman=
40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was talking to some folks about DMARC, and a question came as to suggest
> as the domain holder that your messages should always pass DKIM.
> Effectively, the asker wants to say "I intend to deploy SPF and DKIM, but I
> will *always* sign my messages with DKIM."  So the obvious answer may be
> "Just only use DKIM", but I'm not sure that completely answers the
> question.  While discussing with someone else, "Tell me when DKIM fails,
> but SPF is fully aligned".  There was recently an incident at a provider
> where they were allowing any sender to send as any domain (and I'm aware
> that's not specifically a DMARC issue).  We all know brands that have just
> dumped in a pile of "include" statements without fully understanding the
> implications.  In this case, other users could send as other domains, but
> perhaps they would not have been DKIM signed.  Should there be a method by
> which a domain holder can say "We want all message to have both, or be
> treated as a failure", or "We'll provide both, but DKI
>  M is a must"?
>
> >From a receiver side, it makes evaluation more complex.  From a sender
> side, it gives them more control over what is considered pass/fail.
>
> How does this look in practice?  Maybe
> "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;rua=...;pm=dkim:must,spf:should;"
> (pm=Policy Matrix)
>
> Does this make everyone cringe, or perhaps worth a larger discussion?
>
> --
> Alex Brotman
> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
> Comcast
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>