> Does the base draft's use of the term "authentication" mislead you or your > customers > in any way? No, everything is clear enough. I use the term to refer to passing either SPF or DKIM.
As an aside, I should have mentioned that we are working on DMARC but it is not yet complete. But the way I described it is how it will work. -- Terry From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:51 PM To: Terry Zink Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Terry Zink <tz...@exchange.microsoft.com<mailto:tz...@exchange.microsoft.com>> wrote: > Since SPF authorizes an often _shared_ outbound IP address, it has been > accurately described > as an authorization method. DMaRC permits a DKIM signature to be spoofed and > still allow > a message to be accepted solely on the basis of SPF. What magic turns > authorization into > authentication??? This is a good point and I can share some of our own experiences in Microsoft's Office 365. [...] Terry, In terms of the base draft's content, I think the salient question is: Does the base draft's use of the term "authentication" mislead you or your customers in any way? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
