On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Wiley, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> . . .we have put together an approach that lets a zone owner signal the > policy that is used for their domain by adding a few keywords to the DMARC > record. > > The draft is at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-osterweil-dmarc-dane-names/ > Section 1.2 of your I-D says: > The previous specification of DMARC is almost entirely relevant to the MTA > and transparent to the end user. The additions in this document are also > relevant to the MUA. . . I'm not sure that mixing the features to be used by the MUA into the MTA oriented specs for DMARC makes sense. For instance what would a receiver be expected to do if they attempted to lookup an encoded recipient and could not find the cited record? Would you expect them to enforce a non-pass policy against that message? I think it would be more appropriate to communicate this information at a distinct end service point in the DNS - for example _mailenc.<domain> rather than overloading the DMARC semantics with something that only has a peripheral relationship to message domain authentication. Your proposal seems more in the vein of "Encryption-Based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance". --Kurt Andersen
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
